Patterico's Pontifications

11/2/2006

New York Times Lies to Its Readers About the Content of Kerry’s Remarks

Filed under: General,Media Bias — Patterico @ 12:37 am

The New York Times‘s Kate Zernike runs interference for John Kerry on the topic of his controversial “stuck in Iraq” remarks — to the point of flatly misrepresenting to readers the content of the remarks.

The headline of the Times piece is Flubbed Joke Makes Kerry a Political Punching Bag, Again.

Before making the misrepresentation, Zernike engages in plenty of distortion. As the headline of her piece indicates, she swallows hook, line, and sinker Kerry’s proffered interpretation of the remarks as a “joke” — as if there were no doubt or controversy about that issue at all.

That’s bad enough. Look: I believe, on balance, that it probably was a botched joke. But John McCain disagrees. Tony Snow disagrees. A lot of our troops disagree.

There is a controversy. But Zernike chooses sides, as if it’s completely obvious that Kerry meant what he now claims.

But that’s not what makes this piece so outrageous.

It also completely buries any description of the actual remarks themselves. It is the eighteenth paragraph (!) before Zernike even alludes to the actual content of the remarks. There is plenty of discussion about the fallout from the remarks — but what did Kerry say? It takes eighteen paragraphs to even get to the issue. Amazingly, Zernike quotes praise for Kerry from a small-time lefty blogger before she gets around to telling us what the hell Kerry had said that was so controversial.

But that’s not what makes this piece so outrageous either.

What makes this piece so outrageous is that it flat-out lies about what Kerry said.

That’s right. I’ll repeat it, because it’s so jaw-dropping: in the piece linked above, the New York Times tells a straight lie about the actual content of Kerry’s remarks.

Once Zernike finally gets around to discussing what Kerry actually said, she claims:

Mr. Kerry’s prepared remarks to California students on Monday called for him to say, “Do you know where you end up if you don’t study, if you aren’t smart, if you’re intellectually lazy? You end up getting us stuck in a war in Iraq. Just ask President Bush.” In his delivery, he dropped the word “us.”

Really? He said “Just ask President Bush”?

Zernike is claiming that Kerry said:

Do you know where you end up if you don’t study, if you aren’t smart, if you’re intellectually lazy? You end up getting stuck in a war in Iraq. Just ask President Bush.

Only that’s not even remotely what he said. If it were, then we wouldn’t be having this debate. The inclusion of “Just ask President Bush” — if Kerry had actually spoken that line — would have made it a no-brainer that Kerry meant this as an anti-Bush joke. An absolute no-brainer.

But that’s not what Kerry said. Here is what he did say:

You know, education — if you make the most of it, you study hard and you do your homework and you make an effort to be smart, you can do well. If you don’t, you get stuck in Iraq.

Period. Full stop.

There is no mention of President Bush whatsoever in that quote.

Are there still people on this planet who trust this newspaper?!?!

UPDATE: Tom Maguire reminds us that Ms. Zernike has botched facts in Kerry’s favor before.

UPDATE x2: Thanks to Instapundit and Real Clear Politics for the links.

UPDATE x3: It turns out that Kerry said in 1972: “I am convinced a volunteer army would be an army of the poor and the black and the brown.” In other words, there’s a history that informs the public’s perception of these latest comments.

I still think he was taking a jab at Bush in his recent comments (as I explain in this post, which has a link to the video) — but Kerry has only himself to blame for people’s perceptions to the contrary.

UPDATE x4: Thanks to Power Line and Mickey for the links.

And in other news, it just keeps getting worse and worse for Kerry.

UPDATE x5: And worse.

194 Responses to “New York Times Lies to Its Readers About the Content of Kerry’s Remarks”

  1. Heh, this not only makes the NY Times look silly, it also make Kerry look foolish (when they see the actual quotes in other papers). Just what problem do these idiots think that they will solve with this nonsense! Love it…

    deagle (cf6421)

  2. By completely ignoring YouTube, the NYTimes is becoming increasingly irrelevant on a day by day basis. The only way to save themselves is to come out with a multimedia print edition — going to be tough in a YouTube world.

    Kerry said what he said, he meant what he said and anyone with a computer can plainly see that. The drive by media by trying to hide that is good for accelerating their complete demise.

    This press conference is jaw dropping for the stupidity display of the drive by media. YouTube will rule the day … I pronounce the day where the drive by media can control the news and limit what the public knows as offically over.

    Thank you Tony Snow.

    bill (26027c)

  3. Pat,

    Mr. Kerry’s prepared remarks to California students on Monday called for him to say

    She’s referring to one of Kerry’s 4 versions of what he meant to say…which also means that she still hasn’t gotten around to what he did say. But she’s repeating a lie, not telling one of her own.

    Pablo (08e1e8)

  4. […] If anyone gives me “pro-left” news-stories, propaganda, studies etc sourced from the NY Times, they will receive a rude comment (exact nature to be confirmed) and a direction to read this post. […]

    NY Times Lies about Kerry « Something should go here, maybe later. (29de9a)

  5. Pablo, Kerry lied or was misinterpred again about his multiple versions (like on Imus he said the only difference was he left out one word, “us”, and he was very adamant about this), but Patterico is saying she the New York Time’s Kate Zernike lied too because she wrote:

    “Mr. Kerry’s prepared remarks to California students on Monday called for him to say, “Do you know where you end up if you don’t study, if you aren’t smart, if you’re intellectually lazy? You end up getting us stuck in a war in Iraq. Just ask President Bush.” In his delivery, he dropped the word ‘us’.

    It’s a lie of omission.

    christoph (9824e6)

  6. Exactly Time…

    I. Exactly. For John Kerry to have been calling Bush uneducated would mean he was calling himself uneducated as well. Or, in fact, even dumber. (FWIW, I met John Kerry once and had a thirty second conversation with him. He……

    JunkYardBlog (621918)

  7. It’s a lie of omission.

    Oh, she’s spinning it for him. But what she said is true in a leftist sort of way. But she never actually quotes him, which is as bad as a lie, and bottom-of-the-barrel bad reportage. Saying what he meant to say, and tossing in one way in which what he said differs doesn’t say that’s the only way what he said was different. It implies it, but it doesn’t say it, which is what I think Patterico is saying.

    The real omission is the failure to provide what he did indeed say. She doesn’t even attempt to do that, perhaps hoping you won’t notice the difference. It’s a typical NYT pro-Dem, facts be damned piece, but not a flat out lie. That said, we are only talking about how stinky the pile of crap is, not whether it is crap. It definitely is.

    Pablo (cb50c5)

  8. The biggest problem with what Kerry said isn’t whether it was a botched joke or not. It was that he said something which was offensive to our soldiers then wouldn’t even own up to the fact that he did, indeed, offend them. This is no different than going to someone’s house, crapping on the floor and saying, “I meant that to go in the toilet. I’m sorry that you were offended it didn’t go in the toilet.”

    This reporter is despicable and doesn’t even deserve the title “reporter” if she can’t be bothered to accurately quote what Kerry said instead of what she wishes he’d said.

    sharon (dfeb10)

  9. The NY TImes are wondering why their readership is down. DUH!… They know what their problem is, that are not stupid people, yet they cannot get their act together. Caeser fiddled while Rome burned comes to mind more for the Editors of this paper. Soon it will either change or disappear.

    rich o (af5e74)

  10. Patterico,

    Thank you for alerting us to this. As also referred to above, what I heard on the radio yesterday as the “intended joke” was different from simply leaving out “us”.

    I respect your opinions and how you come about them. The circumstantial evidence suggests that everybody from John Kerry himself, to his website, to the NYT, are happy to argue it was a joke about Bush but are not eager themselves to put forth the (real) comments in their (real) context for the public to decide.

    If he was really making a joke about the presidency and the need to study hard in school, what would have made the most logical sense would have been something like the following:

    “You know, education — if you make the most of it, you study hard and you do your homework and you make an effort to be smart, you can do well. If you don't, and just get mediocre grades, you end up loosing a presidential election and we all If you don’t, you get stuck in Iraq.

    or

    “You know, education — if you make the most of it, you study hard and you do your homework and you make an effort to be smart, you can do well. If you don’t, and just get mediocre grades, though better than mine, even if you end up as president you can get us all stuck in Iraq.”

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  11. What you point out, Patterico, is what I call “journalistic malpractice”. If only there was a legal “remedy” for it. At least with the rise of (those amateurish, despicable, uneducated, written by pajama wearers) blogs we can see it exposed.

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  12. Kerry did leave out the word “us” too. So it isn’t a lie.

    Is this the best you guys got? Picking on Kerry’s mis-statement? You can do better. Talking about Iraq is hurting republicans.

    Psyberian (9b3c88)

  13. Nice try, Psy. This issue hurts Democrats way more than Republicans and that’s why the moonbats are crazy about it and trying to refocus on the war itself.

    3 weeks ago, you guys were happy to talk about Mark Foley instead of the war.

    2 weeks ago, you were happy to talk about Kuo’s book in which he states that the Bush White House is contemptuous of the religious right.

    Last week, it was beat-up-on-Rush-Limbaugh week for saying Michael J. Fox looked like he hadn’t taken his meds.

    Now you want to talk about the war? Ha!

    sharon (dfeb10)

  14. Kerry did leave out the word “us” too. So it isn’t a lie.

    Sure it is. It’s a clear implication that he said something he didn’t say.

    Patterico (de0616)

  15. One more time: it doesn’t matter if the “joke” was on Bush or on the troops. Either way, it was a dishonorable insult directed at our Commander-in-Chief while we have troops fighting and dying overseas, and it denigrated their efforts and sacrifices by saying they/we/whomever are “stuck” in Iraq. Yes, it’s the lame “quagmire” gambit all over again, and is doubly offensive coming from one that voted to authorize the action in the first place.

    Even if the line had been delivered perfectly (which you would naturally expect it to have been, what with Mr. Kerry being so smart and well-spoken and all), it was an insult to our President, everyone that voted for him, and our troops that are over there supporting our mission. I’m sick and tired of being gratuitously insulted by that pompous ass, and I think it’s about time he got his due. He’s gotten away with this crap for too many decades now.

    Daveg (a721ef)

  16. Here is what John Kerry should have said.

    I appoligize to all service personel that were offended by my comment. I reviewed the transcript and understand why those words were offensive and I sincerely apologize that I uttered them. Those words do not reflect what I was trying to say. I was attempting to state that if you are an under achiever educationally like President Bush you will get us stuck in Iraq. In the interest of making this apology sincere, I must also admit that President Bush’s grades at Yale were slightly higher than mine so that even my intended meaning probably would have been offensive to many. I apologize for that also.

    Bob (1db44f)

  17. When was the last time Kerry said anything that was 100-percent the truth? Ever? I doubt it.

    Let’s face it, he lives in a different world than the one occupied by mere mortals. Maybe having rice exploded in his ass is responsible for that.

    HSD (30b877)

  18. It’s important to note that Kerry never said the words “intellectually lazy”. You needs those words to turn the jibe away from the troops and toward the President. This is how you know Kerry’s lying about the whole thing and some staffer just slipped those words in that script they ginned up after the gaffe.

    You have to be nearly as dishonest as the Times to pretend Kerry didn’t say exactly what he meant to say. Watch the Youtube; Does he look like he’s joking?

    spongeworthy (45b30e)

  19. Psy

    I know why you buy Jean Clod Kerry’s “joke”. I even know why, inspite of the audience “gasps” Kerry didn’t realize he “botched” it until even Don Imus was telling him to go home and shut up.

    The Left really is contemptuous of the US military. It’s the Michael Moore view of the US volunteer Army as a bunch of hi skool dropouts and malcontents who are racist, homophobic

    and they are PAID to shoot GUNS! (and Leftists HATE guns in hands of everyone but criminals, who we are supposed to “understand” as victims of running dog capitalism)

    Dems are furious at Kerry…not because he insulted the troops, but because he let the veil drop yet again on their true feelings.

    Darleen (03346c)

  20. Pat, you’ve left out the full quote. After Kerry took a shot at Bush he stopped and when on “But we’re here to talk about education.” He then made the statement being criticized. He may have intended the comment to be a joke but watching him set it up you do not get that impression.

    Menlo Bob (aa8e35)

  21. NPR did something similar yesterday. The story was about “Republicans’ version’ of the incident. They used the audio clip, but spun it really hard, reading the supposed ‘original text’ supplied by his handlers. “It sounds like the Republicans needed a good issue and they found one” they concluded. No Republicans, of course, were allowed anywhere near the segment.

    Mr. Snitch (12ed9a)

  22. Darleen has it. This may well have been a slip, not even Kerry is that dim, but it was a Freudian slip. He accidentally let us see his true feelings. Psy up above is another believer. The people calling talk radio and defending him are not saying why they do so. They agree with what he said.

    Mike K (416363)

  23. False outrage and exploitation. Haven’t we had enough. Let’s focus on the issues.

    Mike (fa691e)

  24. Disclaimer: The following statement may not be classified as “gloating” because he who utters it will not be gratified by the event he predicts.

    Talk this shit up all you want, guys. The Dems are takin’ the House.

    “Leftists HATE guns in hands of everyone but criminals…”

    -Darleen

    I’m pretty far “left” (although I’m usually right, ha) and I LOVE GUNS. When I’m old enough, I’ll probably buy several, and shoot them off in the pristine New Mexico desert. .44 Magnum, Thompson style.

    Leviticus (43095b)

  25. I’d take issue with your points 1 & 2 – folks are waking up this morning and admitting that it was fun while it lasted, but yep, Kerry probably just mangled a joke (and his ambitions, thank goodness). If he had delivered the joke properly it still would have been dumb.

    The photo of the troops with the mispelled sign provided some much-needed catharsis amidst all this uptightness, and now if Hinderaker and Captain Ed say the book is pretty much closed on this flap, it probably is. The Dems could have done themselves a favor by getting their licks in on the Foley, and then showing some decency by letting it go, as the right is seemingly doing with Kerry’s gaffe.

    But yeah…they screwed up the verbatim quote of the most reported paragraph of the last 48 hours.

    It casts doubt on facts that aren’t immediately verifiable, when the common-knowledge facts are treated so carelessly.

    biwah (2dcf66)

  26. Wow. You really nailed them. Geez, what a bunch of horseshit.

    Scott (38250f)

  27. “Last week, it was beat-up-on-Rush-Limbaugh week for saying Michael J. Fox looked like he hadn’t taken his meds.

    Now you want to talk about the war? Ha! ”

    -sharon

    Actually, sharon, I’d love a chance to continue beating on Limbaugh. You game?

    After all, it’s a lot less depressing than talking about our doom…

    Leviticus (43095b)

  28. The interesting thing to me about this kerfuffle has pretty well gone unsaid: I am old enough to remember when the NYTimes was proudly called “the newspaper of record.” It’s a nice idea: a journal that can be used by generations to come as an accurate historical resource. To use a much over-used word, that’s an awesome responsibility, one that transcends partisan politics and selective reporting. It is clear Pinch has decided to steer the NYTimes in a different direction and turn his back on a very long history of integrity. There will probably be a correction in a couple of days, buried on page 38, and NYTimes loyalists will point to that as setting the record straight. It will only be a fig leaf emphasizing how naked the Grey Lady is under present leadership. The world, especially of historians, is a worse place for this short-sighted partisan decision. F

    Fred LaSor (492ea0)

  29. Why Hinderaker and Ed Morrisey? – typically these guys, with whom I usually disagree, aren’t about the kabuki and false outrage for show (cf. McCain, Malkin). Right or wrong, I think their outrage is usually grounded in a real belief and not how they think the outrage will be perceived.

    As for the “Freudian slip” theory (a la Darleen and others) – it’s silly, biased, and completely self-serving, but theorize away.

    biwah (2dcf66)

  30. […] Patterico found this, and it’s a beaut. This is one that actually demands many polite-but-indignant phone calls to the paper. The “public editor” can be reached at (212) 556-7652. […]

    The Anchoress » NY Times just out-and-out lies! (1b383c)

  31. Is this the best you guys got?

    Kerry was the best the Democrats had two years ago, Psyberian, and with the interference being run by the MSM(highlighted by this NYTimes article), the left blogosphere, and many Dem officials, Kerry may be the best you have two years from now.

    It’s amazing that this is a battle that Dems want to fight.

    bains (9ab9f8)

  32. The Kerry Flap Keeps Flapping…

    First I want to point out that the Washington Post front-paged this story today:
    Scandals Alone Could Cost Republicans Their House Majority
    But, according to Howard Kurtz, they didn’t front-page the Kerry flap yesterday. Meanwhile, the NYT is……

    Mary Katharine Ham (95d97e)

  33. This article was handed to a NYT reporter by a Dimocrat operative. They will do anything to protect themselves, and the big media outlets happily comply.

    Neo (278a18)

  34. “Kerry may be the best you have two years from now.”

    -bains

    In that case you’d better start making up more lowbrow bullshit to hit’m with, eh, bains?

    How’s this: “News surfaced today that John Kerry was AWOL from his Air National Guard unit for a period of three months, snorted gobs and gobs of cocaine, impregnated a woman out of wedlock, and danced naked on tabletops. Also, it was discovered that every business endeavor John Kerry ever invested his time in failed miserably. Baseball players around the world spit on his image. Finally, it was discovered that, while drunk, Theresa Heinz Kerry killed a friend in a college car accident (this is extremely, extremely pertinent: shut up).

    And that’s the news… Good night.”

    Man, that shit would really rock the proverbial boat, wouldn’t it?

    Leviticus (43095b)

  35. Of course the WaPo buried it on A-8 yesterday and made it an attack piece on Bush and their frontpager now tries to *not* catch up on the story and get the actual story out.

    But then, the Washington Post is truly incapable as a newspaper. I mean they can’t even figure out the Federal spending cycle which happens to be something of interest to them.

    So it isn’t just the outright refusal of the NYT to carry actual quotations as they were said, something having to do with ‘journalistic ethics’, but then spinning *that* and asking ‘what is the big deal?’ Well, if you lie about the quote and lie about what was said about it and then actually don’t print the real, actual quote, you probably are at sea on things… like life, at that point.

    Ethics and integrity are apparently beneath MSM journalism today. Setting out to counter ‘yellow journalism’, the NYT now is its own shade of yellow.

    ajacksonian (841f28)

  36. NY Times-[Democrat]: It’s President’s fault Kerry insulted troops…

    This editorial from the NY Times-[Democrat] reads just like a blog post at some Angry Left hate site like The Daily Kos or Think Progress.

    The Great Divider
    As President Bush throws himself into the final days of a particularly nasty campaign season, …

    The Unalienable Right (7644ea)

  37. Bains:

    It’s amazing that this is a battle that Dems want to fight.

    As a Dem supporter I am continually astounded and dismayed by their choice of battles. Though he may have some baggage of his own, Howard Dean has showed good sense in his choice of issues that he would like to fight on. It has only earned him the resentment of the DLC. Kerry is a prime example of the over-inflated Dem politician plowing around on his own, expecting the Dem establishgment to follow him down the rabbit hole of his choosing.

    Kerry is not without his strengths, but they are constantly shrinking in comparison to his massive foibles. The Mass voters should be fed up with being tarred with his out-of-touch, “brahmin” image and replace him with a younger, cannier, more in-touch, and genuinely progressive candidate IMO. That would speak volumes (for the better) about the Dem Party.

    And then we can chuckle over his more innocuous quotes:

    Who among us does not love NASCAR?

    It’s interesting that both he and Bush are so verbally challenged, in such opposite ways.

    biwah (2dcf66)

  38. Man, that shit would really rock the proverbial boat, wouldn’t it?

    Yes, just as “Capt. Bush took time away from flying one of the most dangerous aircraft ever to be part of the US Air Force fleet to travel to Paris to treasonously meet with a North Vietnamese contingent during a time of war. He also managed to find time to slander the entire US military in testimony to Congress in self-serving support of his political aspirations.”

    Plenty of vitriol and bile to throw at both sides, you see, but only one side in this current situation admitted openly to participating in war crimes, and more recently attempted to fling an insult at the Commander-in-Chief. I’m sure that distinction is lost on you, though. Probably not nuanced enough.

    Daveg (a721ef)

  39. […] Vietnam is their touchstone; it is impossible for them to let it go. Every conflict since then that involved “boots on the ground” is always warned to be “another Vietnam”; every Republican President is considered “worse than Nixon” by Kerry and his anti-soldier cohorts. It’s a pathetic, mutant gene lodged in their brains that has failed to evolve as we progressed into the 21st Century. […]

    LeatherPenguin » Kerry, the “Nuanced Internationalist”:Captain Obvious Reports from the UK (17aab0)

  40. New York Times Lies to Its Readers About the Content of Kerry’s Remarks…

    New York Times Lies to Its Readers About the Content of Kerry’s RemarksPatterico The New York Times’s Kate Zernike runs interference for John Kerry on the topic of his controversial “stuck in Iraq” remarks — to the point of flatly…

    Bill's Bites (72c8fd)

  41. And this is still a story today how?

    Ed (fcb51d)

  42. You wingnuts are about to get slaughtered in a midterm, and this is what you’re talking about? Maybe you should return to discussing the crescent-shaped 9/11 memorial or your Ted Kennedy treason theories. You’re toast – see you November 7th!

    blogenfreude (de375b)

  43. If anybody cares to remember, the only reason that Kerry won the nomination last time is because he looked like a moderate who could win. That “Winner” aura is long gone. I just don’t see how he does that again. Not to mention, despite what the angry left claims happened in Ohio, losing by 4 million popular votes.

    This is Hillary’s nomination for the taking, and I am not sure what Republican out there I would vote for over her. Though I would vote for Bush for a third term in a heartbeat.

    moptop (0a8642)

  44. […] Patterico notes that the NYT misquoted Kerry’s comments in its new story in order to defend him. That’s novel. We didn’t see that one coming. […]

    Dinocrat » Blog Archive » One reason the NYT is number three in its home market (ea6a9d)

  45. Agreeing with Darleen and disagreeing with Biwah, in a way, I think Kerry was telling a joke, and his actual words were the actual joke. But the joke was in bad taste and, in the age of the internets and 24/7 news, was heard by many more than a few hundred campaigners and students in Pasadena.

    The joke is one I and my friends would laugh at since the days of MASH and Gomer Pyle, thru Stripes and Private Benjamin, now served with added sadism in films such as Jarhead. It’s a joke founded on having to maintain a high GPA to avoid the draft back in the Vietnam era and the old paradigm of mass-production/mass casualty warfare. It is: you’re either stupid to be patriotic and go get shot at, or you’re too stupid to get any other job but be shot at. Yes, we also joked about senile cowboy warmonger Reagan and the pinhead generals. Many of my old friends from back in those days still have those attitudes, a snide dismissal of the military conveyed in Bill Clinton’s famous letter to his draft board. How many posters on so many boards these past few days who say, “Is that all you rethugs got?” will admit they share that attitude so very common among those of us who are or were on the left?

    It seems a joke for the college crowd of yesteryear, judging from the gasps from some in the crowd. Maybe the gaspers know someone in the military, maybe even in Iraq, and Kerry’s remarks seemed to blame the victim for being in danger. Maybe they’re better informed about the requirements to get in the military. Maybe they have better manners as well.

    Geo W (9efa5e)

  46. Geo W, well I agree with you that Kerry’s frame of reference is based on a different era. He is still looking at the military as the unfortunate sons of middle and lower-class america who couldn’t pull the right strings to get deferrals. Irrelevant in the era of the volunteer military, and irrelevant in terms of U.S. foreign policy. His remark was patronizing even under his view. George W Bush’s grades are only relevant to the war to someone who thinks the war is no more than a political pissing match, as Kerry clearly does.

    biwah (2dcf66)

  47. Maybe in the future the NY Times will do all politicians the favor of reporting what they “meant” to say, rather than what was actually said. Wouldn’t that be helpful?

    ss (ad4885)

  48. This is no different than going to someone’s house, crapping on the floor and saying, “I meant that to go in the toilet. I’m sorry that you were offended it didn’t go in the toilet.”

    John Kerry has done that, too.

    Vermont Neighbor (456914)

  49. And while we’re on the New York Times…

    Please explain to me why they’re telling bald-faced lies to cover for John Kerry? OK, perhaps they’re not lying. Perhaps the reporter is just incompetent. Just as John Kerry is just an incompetent politician. Just as Dan Rather was just…

    Public Secrets: from the files of the Irishspy (72c8fd)

  50. For all the times Bush has flubbed what he meant to say you now go after Kerry for doing the same thing realy shows where your minds are at.

    How about this one or does it not fit with your ideology? NRT Jennifer Steinhauer reported on monday that Nancy Pelosi “favors alternative sentencing over prison construction, schools without prayer and death with taxes”. That is an absurd and biased representation of Pelosi’s views not to mention simply not true. It is a lie. Since it does not fit into your “NYT liberal traitors” meme it has been ignored here.

    The NYT is a very flawed newspaper but the flaws do not all cut one way. Remember the Judy Miller stories parroting whatever the Bush administrations line about WMD’s was at the time. Remember they held off on the warrantless wiretapping story for a year till after Bush won the election. To a large degree the NYT helped get us into the war in Iraq so many here were clamoring for and this is how you pay them back. For shame.

    Paul (94ac04)

  51. It’s not the NYT’s fault; they’re under a lot of pressure from falling circulation, you know.

    ras (c7dc18)

  52. The story is over when the military bloggers say its over. People that have never served don’t get to call this off when Kerry forwards the old slur that folks in the military are there because they couldn’t make it in the private sector. Frankly, I’m sick of it and I believe this is the perfect time to root it out be ADDRESSING it.

    For me, Kerry needs to go the Gibson route. Go to a base where soldiers are departing for Iraq or coming home and highlight what they have done with their lives. Have his staff do some research on the actual academic achievments of the military and go into a lefty fever swamp, aka MSM outlet, and report his findings.

    Sweetie (901f54)

  53. The New York Times And An Outright Lie…

    This is, as Patterico says, an absolute jaw-dropper. This is not a distortion. This is not using slanted or loaded language. This is not selective reporting of only the facts you want out there. This is not even creative editing of a quote to…

    Blue Crab Boulevard (a177fd)

  54. Leviticus:

    In that case you’d better start making up more lowbrow bullshit to hit’m with, eh, bains?

    Not only missing the point entirely, but reinforcing my contention that you are choosing your battles unwisely…

    bains (9ab9f8)

  55. Someone needs to get an online copy of that so called joke transcript. I remember when the Rathergate thing was going on, some Blogger was able to decifer the embedded coding in the the fake documents and determine when they were created and when they were modified. I don’t believe Kerry’s story and to paraphrase the great Ronald Reagan, I think we should “distrust,so verify”.

    mike eustace (873a7c)

  56. […] Again, neither this nor Kerry’s long, long history of denigrating soldiers proves that he meant to smear the troops at the Angelides rally. And yeah, that’s important to keep in mind; otherwise, as Lileks said this morning, you’re flirting with “fake but accurate.” What it does prove is that Kerry’s an ignoramus, and one whom the New York Times will lie shamelessly to its readers to protect. […]

    Hot Air » Blog Archive » Waffles ‘72: Volunteer army would exploit poor, minorities (d4224a)

  57. It is a constant source of amusement to me how lefty commenters have to use obscenity to sound tough. You guys are hanging an awful lot of your psyche on the election next week. What if you’re wrong ? One of the best comments on the 2000 election, long before things got so serious, was that Bush had other things to do if he lost the election. If Gore lost, his life was over. Looks like that was pretty close. Seen Gore lately ? Maybe you should get a life, too.

    Mike K (416363)

  58. […] Why nobody in America should believe the NY Times. […]

    Reverse Spin » NY Times makes it up (1332d3)

  59. How can anything the NYT (and the rest of the lamestream media) do surprise us any more? They are predictably predictable in their not-so-hidden agenda to bash Bush.

    Bottom line: Our U.S. troops deserve better than what Kerry and the lamestream media dish up. How is it that the NY Post was the only major newspaper to publish that wonderful “Halp us Jon Carry” photo?

    Ann (36e2e7)

  60. Kerry even misquoted himself on Imus to try to change the spin.

    On Imus he said,

    “I left out the word “us.” “They got us stuck.” Instead of that, I said, “They got stuck,” and…”

    What he actually said is,

    “…you can do well, if you don’t, you get stuck in Iraq.”

    Not “they” but “you”.

    Clearly Kerry was not referring to the Bush administration at that moment or he would have said “they get stuck in Iraq.”
    But he said “you” as if addressing his student audience and identifying them as future soldiers in Iraq.

    Perhaps he accidentally said what he really thought.

    dougger (48f7a7)

  61. […] Unless you’re the NYT: What makes this piece so outrageous is that it flat-out lies about what Kerry said. […]

    bloodthirstyliberal.com » Lies, Damned Lies, and the New York Times (cb2f3f)

  62. […] One MSM outfit does some homework while another one outift, the NYT’s, tries to pass off the “corrected” version of Kerry’s comments as if it was what he really said: (via Patterico’s Pontifications) It also completely buries any description of the actual remarks themselves. It is the eighteenth paragraph (!) before Zernike even alludes to the actual content of the remarks. There is plenty of discussion about the fallout from the remarks — but what did Kerry say? It takes eighteen paragraphs to even get to the issue. Amazingly, Zernike quotes praise for Kerry from a small-time lefty blogger before she gets around to telling us what the hell Kerry had said that was so controversial. […]

    Flopping Aces » Blog Archive » The Real John Kerry, Redux (986d71)

  63. Yeah, I still trust the NYT. I trust them to obfuscate, lie, distort, confuse, confound, and supply false, liberal, left-wing nutroots bull**** as truth. I do not believe that trust is misplaced.

    mikeyslaw (a9eaba)

  64. Staunch Defense And Daring Offense…

    If there were any doubt that certain elements of the mainstream media have taken sides in the midterm election (and, really, there isn’t any doubt, but play along with my hypothetical for a moment), those doubts can be dispelled by…

    Joust The Facts (72c8fd)

  65. Actus, where are you? Patterico and his ilk are hammering us on this NYT thing. Help! Help!

    Help us Obi-wan Actus, you’re our only hope….

    EFG (aa5d0a)

  66. you’re beating a dead horse. the gas tank in this story is empty.
    john kerry is just one man, not the entire democratic party. i groaned when he was nominated in 04 because i knew the ballgame was probably over right there. i believe most of the party has “movedon” and his outlook in 08 is bleak.
    john kerry lied when he said his remarks were about the president, not about the troops. the new york times lied when it doctored his remarks for its readership.
    the irony here which so few acknowledge is that kerry was telling the truth in the remarks themselves. like most wars including vietnam, this war is being fought by people who are disproportionately poorer and less educated than the citizenry at large or the readers of political blogs. we would be the beneficiaries of their sacrifice if this were a well-planned, well-executed mission, but we are not making the sacrifice ourselves.
    the world has changed. creeping corporate globalism has stifled individual opportunity in america. the middle class is dying. the good union jobs that could support a family are all gone to asia now.
    imagine you’re a recent high school graduate with a “c” average. your options are limited. if you can take the time off to study, you might get a community college degree. you could also get a mcjob. the third option, which is so attractive to many in this situation, is to join the military. uncle sam gives you a steady paycheck, you get to go to foreign countries and there’s a structure there that will give you an identity and a home, through which you might rise through the ranks. nobody can be blamed or dishonored for making this choice. all the blame and dishonor goes to the civilians (who never served themselves) who put these young americans in harm’s way for the foolish, futile mission of establishing american corporate hegemony over the oilfields.
    john kerry missed an opportunity to stand by his remarks and explain vital points to the american people. he displayed dishonesty and cowardice. he’s a gutless weasel.

    assistant devil's advocate (1effb1)

  67. Why should actus or anyone else bother arguing this? The NYT is a BUSINESS. If you don’t like their product, don’t buy it.

    “But Leviticus, they market their ‘product’ as truth!!!” Yeah, so do about 50 conservative commentators. The only difference between the two sides is that the NYT has actually reported truth in the past, and has a reputation for it.

    The media is full of inference, and when you rely on inference in reporting, someone is always going to claim that you’re biased.

    On the same note, quotes get cleaned up all the time so papers don’t waste space writing “uh…” or “hmmmm…” or “let’s see…” every time they ask a politician a question of a remotely inquisitive nature.

    Leviticus (43095b)

  68. The vast majority of clips of John Kerry’s quotes cut off right after “you get stuck in Iraq”, thus leaving open the possibility that the NYT got the balance of the quote correct: “Just ask President Bush.” Here is a video showing more context, demonstrating that he said no such thing:

    Also, this video seems to undermine Kerry’s spin that this “joke” was in the middle of other jokes about Bush. There are no jokes that immediately follow. Rather, it seems the quote is a specific tangent from talking points about education.

    Immediately before: “We’re here to talk about education, but I want to say something before”

    Immediately after: “I just want to say a word about Iraq for a minute before I talk about Phil Angelides and education”

    JDK (af36b7)

  69. You gotta read this blog post regarding the media bias — proven by a CMPA study.
    http://sopebocks.blogspot.com/2006/11/topic-liberal-bias-in-media-proven-im.html

    Check it out. 77% of “big three” stories regarding politics are favorable to liberals (or at least Dems in general).

    JonCarry (534e39)

  70. “Capt. Bush took time away from flying one of the most dangerous aircraft ever to be part of the US Air Force fleet to travel to Paris to treasonously meet with a North Vietnamese contingent during a time of war. He also managed to find time to slander the entire US military in testimony to Congress in self-serving support of his political aspirations.”

    -Daveg

    Let me guess. “Kerry” was AWOL from the Air National Guard because he took his plane out to kill the Vietnamese all by himself. He just didn’t want anyone to know how patriotic he was.

    Also, there’s a difference between “treasonously” meeting with the North Vietnamese (which some would call freedom of speech, in a bygone era) and snorting cocaine while being AWOL from the air national guard (both of which constitute CRIMES).

    “Not only missing the point entirely, but reinforcing my contention that you are choosing your battles unwisely…”

    -bains

    Fair enough, bains. But I’ve stated over and over again that the Democrats are a bunch of shady bog trotters, and you tell me that Kerry is the best candidate “we” have got. What “we”?

    None of us care about fighting this “battle”. We’ll just be happy to have a deadlock in Congress so neither side can screw us (too badly) for the next couple of years.

    Leviticus (43095b)

  71. Oh me oh my. Now it’s a conspiracy between the video editors and the NYT to spin Kerry’s remark.

    You want a little conspiracy try this. The NYT, ABC, CNN, Washington Post, AP, Baltimore Sun, NPR, Newsday, USA Today, Washington Times, Los Angeles Times all reported that Rush Limbaugh had apologized for the Michael J. Fox remarks within 48 hours of Rush’s remarks. He had not apologized. They were all lying.

    This does not excuse the NYT slip up or deliberate misquote but jeeze people, get a little perspective.

    Paul (94ac04)

  72. @joncarry:
    two points:
    1. you’re accepting the word of an obscure, conservative blog (sopebocks, not patterico) as revealed truth?
    2. there’s an explanation for 77% of “big three” stories regarding politics being favorable to democrats which does not involve media bias. maybe, just maybe, the democrats are smarter and have it right this time. a week from now you will come to find that about 2/3 of the voters agree. your statement presupposes that there is an ideal, perfect, nonbiased media line which, with your perspicacity, you could no doubt recognize when you heard it. sorry to disillusion you about this, but the media is just people+money. all the smart people i know are biased one way or another. i sure am.

    assistant devil's advocate (1effb1)

  73. Paul,

    Oh me oh my. Now it’s a conspiracy between the video editors and the NYT to spin Kerry’s remark.

    No conspiracy. Just an observation that without further evidence (i.e. the precise works following Kerry’s quote), the NYT claim could not be discounted. I provided the evidence.

    Take your finger off the trigger. I wasn’t looking for a fight, just a more complete perspective.

    JDK (af36b7)

  74. “Do you know where you end up if you don’t study, if you aren’t smart, if you’re intellectually lazy? You end up…” losing circulation daily.

    John Hansen (10b019)

  75. words not works.

    JDK (af36b7)

  76. A heartfelt thank you to KFI.

    Gbear (6a100c)

  77. A Plethora Of Polling, Punditry, And Predictions…

    NRO’s The Corner: Dems +6 in the Senate…
    Reuters/Zogby: Menendez by 12(!) in New Jersey…
    Rutgers-Eagleton: Menendez by 4…
    Larry Sabatto: Dems +5-6 in Senate, +24-30 in House…
    Patterico: Truth +50 over NY Times…

    ……

    Decision '08 (1b383c)

  78. Kerry was the best Dem in 2004 in that he was the party nominee. You, as in generic (and collectively) Democrat. I didn’t mean to imply you specifically.

    Back when Sen Lott made his ill-advised comment, I understood the context in which it was issued, and thought the statement rather benign. But I wasn’t going to defend him, cuz I was glad see him yanked from the national stage. It was a tactical battle that the right could have fought, but with strategic consequences. (Choosing Frist as his replacement was a strategic error in and of it self IMO).
    One of the first comments I heard from the pundocrisy on Tuesday was that Kerry’s comments, and especially his clarification, effectively disqualified him from the 2008 contest. Given Kerry’s abyssmal performance in 2004, I’ve got to wonder why so many are seeking to “rescue” him now.

    bains (9ab9f8)

  79. The obvious thing I haven’t seen mentioned is that Kerry voted to get us stuck in Iraq! I think it was really a self deprecating joke.

    “You know, education — if you make the most of it, you study hard and you do your homework and you make an effort to be smart, you can do well. If you don’t, you “vote to” get “us” stuck in Iraq.”

    And if the grey lady didn’t pander to barking moonbats with this type of blather there wouldn’t be anyone reading the disparaging dirge at all.

    ravingcowboy (7f8bbd)

  80. Actually it’s fabulous that the NYT is destroying its still influential franchise in this way, and I applaud them for doing it. At this rate they’ll about as significant as ‘The Nation’ in less than ten years. Faster, please!

    ZF (6f173f)

  81. My very enjoyable, but not necessarily reliable, source, Early Times Manhattan, informs me that the first draft of Kerry’s prepared remarks read:

    Do you know where you end up if you don’t study, if you aren’t smart, if you’re intellectually lazy? You end up chasing rich young heiresses and even richer widows for their money.

    nk (54c569)

  82. JDK I agree, a more complete perspective is exactly what we need here. How about a little pesperctive by exorcising the demons of our ten minute memory/attention span and comparing this to some of the things Bush has said in the past.

    Bush 2004 “We will stand up for terror. We will stand up for freedom.”

    Bush 2004 “The truth of the matter is, if you listen carefully, Saddam would still be in power if he were president of the United States, and we’d be alot better off.”

    Bush 2005 “Our enemies are innovative and resourcfull, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we.”

    Bush 2003 “The second pillar of peace and security in our world is the willingness of free nations, when the last resort arrives, to retain agression and evil by force.”

    Bush 2002 “There’s no doubt in my mind that we should allow americas worst leaders to hold America hostage, to threaten our peace, to threaten our friends and allies with the worlds worst weapons.”

    I could go on and on but the point should be clear. If you would hold Bush to the same standard many of you now want to hold Kerry to, and not allow for the possibility that kerry flubbed his delivery, then Bush would indeed be a madman bent on violence and dictatorship based on his own words. The media have been giving Bush a pass on this stuff since before he became president but if they do it for Kerry the right wing blogosphere explodes in outrage. Go figure.

    Paul (94ac04)

  83. […] The New York Times’s Kate Zernike runs interference for John Kerry on the topic of his controversial “stuck in Iraq” remarks — to the point of flatly misrepresenting to readers the content of the remarks. [more]   […]

    The Two Malcontents » New York Times Lies to Its Readers About the Content of Kerry’s Remarks (9f8249)

  84. While your points are all well taken, all that means to me is the NYT has continued to define its market to an ever decreasing and smaller segment of the tri-state radical chic market–They are publishing the stuff that will maintain their rapidly diminishing circulation, and to do that, that have to cater to the wealthy tri-state, Lamont type, moonbats. The NYT has never told the truth on its editorial pages (although they are, properly, opinion) and has now abandoned any pretense of objective reporting. Its a rag.

    rogera (b75873)

  85. …rico,

    Mr. Kerry did not mean to disparage the troops, in that he did not intend to talk about the troops in that comment. He was talking about education, and because it was an unscripted comment, he relied on his own opinion of something bad that could happen to the students if they didn’t take their schoolwork seriously. He would not normally let that opinion out, but he spoke before he thought, and now it is out there.

    Mike S (d3f5fd)

  86. […] The really sad thing is how Kerry is enabled by an increasingly irresponsible media: The New York Times’s Kate Zernike runs interference for John Kerry on the topic of his controversial “stuck in Iraq” remarks — to the point of flatly misrepresenting to readers the content of the remarks. […]

    A Second Hand Conjecture » The Erstwhile President (f55714)

  87. Paul:

    No argument, Bush has misspoken… frequently.

    Kerry’s “joke” would be easier to dismiss if he did not have a history of hostility against our armed service members:

    1971:

    they had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the countryside of South Vietnam in addition to the normal ravage of war

    1972:

    I am convinced a volunteer army would be an army of the poor and the black and the brown

    2005:

    And there is no reason, Bob, that young American soldiers need to be going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children, you know, women, breaking sort of the customs of the–of–the historical customs, religious customs. Whether you like it or not–Iraqis should be doing that.

    History like this does not exist for the Bush misquotes you cite. If Bush were asked to defend those quotes, he would not. But Kerry’s first reaction is not to apologize to those he might have offended, but to rant for 5 minutes straight about Republicans.

    Additionally, quotes like this indicate that Kerry’s actual words reflect common opinion among the left (see comment #68 above):

    the irony here which so few acknowledge is that kerry was telling the truth in the remarks themselves. like most wars including vietnam, this war is being fought by people who are disproportionately poorer and less educated than the citizenry at large or the readers of political blogs.

    This is not the first time I have read that defense in the last couple days.

    Did Kerry botch the joke? Probably. Was it intended to be about Bush? I’ll buy that. Did he apologize? A little late, but yeah. Did this episode reveal how the left really feals about our troops? You bet.

    JDK (af36b7)

  88. The difference between the New York Times and toilet paper is that toilet paper is softer.

    Ok, maybe there are other differences, but I’m only going to point out one of them, and if you’re presuming that is the only one, you also shouldn’t read the article as you’ll fail to understand the issue with Kerry’s statement.

    Real NY Times readers, writers, and editors will understand the nuance and complexity of my initial statement, and therefore won’t be offended. I’m sure of it.

    Gekkobear (b9f4be)

  89. JDK the truth is it’s own defense. You say this episode shows how the left feels about the troops when this episode shows how the right is willing to disingenuously jump on any issue to try and paint the left as anti-military, even if it involves misrepresenting the case.

    Kerry’s remarks about a volunteer army are not at all anti-military and stem from a realization that many people join the military for reasons other than patriotism and that the military is over represented by the poor and minorities. Sorry if that rocks your boat but it is the truth and to try and paint someone who says this as anti-military is dishonest.

    The 2005 comment about U.S. military is totally on the mark and factual. Our soldiers routinely break into Iraqi homes at night. An action which terrorizes the ocupants who consist of women and children. Apparently another inconvenient truth for you. The fact is our military is in agreement with Kerry on this and would like to use more Iraqi troops for these raids. Remember winning hearts and minds?

    You state these things Kerry said as if you were prooving some point but never back up your assertions that they are “anti-troop”. Was the investigation into Mai Lei ani-troop. To point out immoral actions of people on your own side is not disloyal. After the Nuremburg trials it should be clear that it is in fact the only way to keep more atrocities from happening.

    You also say that because the Kerry comment backs up some preconceived prejudice the right has about Kerry being anti-military then it is probably what he meant even if he says it is not and was just a joke. I could just as easily point to Bush’s “joke” about how it would be much easier to run America if it was a dictatorship. That certainly fits into what many on the left feel about Bush. That he want’s to be a dictator. Does that mean he meant what he said?

    Paul (94ac04)

  90. Reading the comments to this article gives a good cross section of online responses. A huge number of posters are talking about something other than what Patterico brought up.
    My 2 Cents:
    No one that I read was able to refute Patterico’s point, which is, the NY Times lied to make Kerry look better and the President look worse. An election built on misinformation is hardly what our Constitution is all about. I believe that a lying press is in many ways just as dangerous to our liberty as lying politicians.

    tyree (b2fade)

  91. Assistant Devil’s Advocate says:

    the irony here which so few acknowledge is that kerry was telling the truth in the remarks themselves. like most wars including vietnam, this war is being fought by people who are disproportionately poorer and less educated than the citizenry at large or the readers of political blogs. we

    One of the irritating things about many liberals is their bland assertion of liberal talking points as established facts without regard to their actual truth. The statement above is a particularly egregious example of this practice.

    The reality of today’s military–using a methodology that identifies recruit’s ZIP codes and median incomes in those ZIP codes, plus their actual educational level upon enlistment shows that the volunteer army is better educated than the general US population, comes from families with a higher than average income, and are more rural than the general US population. They tend to come from families with $30K to $80K annual incomes—a chunk cut out of the heart of the middle class.

    Now I know that our Senate is largely populated with millionaires or near billionaires who got elected using their or their daddy’s or wive’s or husband’s money (Kennedy, Kerry, Feinstein for illustrative examples) or who made hundreds of millions themselves (Frist, Corzine, Cantwell) and spent some of their boodle to buy themselves a seat in the Senate.

    I don’t begrudge them their place in the Senate; they spent a lot of dough and effort to get there.

    But they and their sycophants on the blue coasts and in liberal academia are obnoxious when they talk about their sympathy for the “little guy” and demean the accomplishments of those “little” guys from the middle class in small towns. Elitist John Kerry couldn’t carry the jockstrap of the average Marine Lance Corporal.

    Mike Myers (8f37e5)

  92. tyree, Patterico’s point that the NYT lied about Kerry’s remark stands irrefuted as far as I have read here but it was put into context by me and I have not seen anyone adress that. If you think the NYT lied in order to make Kerry look better and the president worse then follow your logic. The NYT lied about Nancy Pelosi on Monday saying “She favors alternative sentencing over prison construction, schools without prayer and death with taxes.” That is a lie to make the democrats look worse and the republicans look better. The NYT and tons of other news organizations, as I listed in a comment above, lied about Rush Limbaugh stating that he had apologized about what he said concerning MJFox when he had not. That was a lie designed to make the democrats look worse and the republicans look better.

    Just following your logic there tyree. A lying press is indeed dangerous. Thats partly how we got into Iraq to begin with.

    Paul (94ac04)

  93. I’d like to join the debate, but my comments are not getting past the spam filters here. I’m also having the same problem on other sites. I’m informed that “Black Jack” is a prime spam indicator.

    Consequently, I’m going to use the name “mokus” but I’m still the same guy. Perhaps one day Black Jack can come back. I’m looking forward to it.

    mokus (539ee5)

  94. Paul:

    You have agreed with Kerry’s 2005 quote by saying (comment #91):

    Our soldiers routinely break into Iraqi homes at night. An action which terrorizes the ocupants who consist of women and children.

    Would you agree with this statement also?

    There has never been an American army as violent and murderous as the one in Iraq

    JDK (af36b7)

  95. This is no different from when Rumsfeld said that Flight 93 was “shot down”. I didn’t hear any conservatives claiming that is what he really meant.

    Kirk (6adbba)

  96. Kirk:

    See comment 89 above. Key point:

    History like this does not exist for the Bush [Cheney] misquotes you cite. If Bush [Cheney] were asked to defend those quotes [that quote], he would not.

    The plain language of Kerry’s original quote is consistent with a track record of other quotes showing similar disdain for our troops. And despite this, Kerry begins his first press conference with: “I will apologize to no one”.

    What makes the Kerry quote different than the Cheney misstatement you cite is that Kerry’s quote, in the context of the history of Kerry’s quotes, supported by a host of other quotes from the left, shows that the left generally (not universally) holds contempt for the members of our armed services.

    JDK (af36b7)

  97. JDK, no I don’t think the American army is any more violent or murderous now then in past wars but I am not a military historian and that would be a hard thing to either prove or disprove.

    Paul (462b6e)

  98. Patterico Has The Hammer And Nails For The NY Times…

    You gotta love it, folks. The NY Times is already reeling from the drop in circulation and ad dollars, and they print stories like this one where they out-and-out lie about the issue at hand. It just goes to show that these jokers don’t care whether…

    The Asylum Pundits (95d97e)

  99. Kerry’s remarks about a volunteer army are not at all anti-military and stem from a realization that many people join the military for reasons other than patriotism and that the military is over represented by the poor and minorities. Sorry if that rocks your boat but it is the truth and to try and paint someone who says this as anti-military is dishonest.

    This is not true, in fact. The current military personnel make-up is as close to representative of America as any organization known. The only variances to that are that the average educational background of active duty personnel is higher than the national average, and that middle- and upper middle-class whites are slightly over-represented. Blacks, hispanics, and asians are within two percentage points of matching their respective societal representations in the population.

    Freelancer (cb897a)

  100. Paul:

    Your response is a little vague:

    no I don’t think the American army is any more violent or murderous now then in past wars but I am not a military historian and that would be a hard thing to either prove or disprove.

    I’ll focus the question a bit. Do you believe the American army is generally murderous?

    JDK (af36b7)

  101. Actually, sharon, I’d love a chance to continue beating on Limbaugh. You game?

    When you’re old enough to sit in a bar and drink a beer with me and not need me to point out your milk moustache, then we can do that, ok? Till then, you should probably get back to Spongebob.

    sharon (dfeb10)

  102. FAQ – John Kerry!…

    1) What was the “joke” that John Kerry allegedly meant to tell when he got himself in all that soup?
    According to the Kerry propaganda ministry, a.k.a. The New York Times, Kerry meant to say, “Do you know where you end up if you don’t study, i…

    Dean Barnett (95d97e)

  103. I do not believe the American army is generally murderous. I beleive that war is a horrible, uncivilized activity that inevitably will lead to some soldiers going over to the darker side of human nature if you will. Hopefully in more civilized societies their soldiers will do that less often than the soldiers of say a China or Cambodia or Congo but if the society at large, the home front, me and you, refuse to acknowledge the crimes and atrocities if and when they happen that in no way helps support the troops and only encourages those who may have a violent, sadistic nature to loose control as they know there will be no punishment for their actions. A fish rots from the head down.

    I also think that in your comment 98 you are basicaly accusing Kerry of thought crime and guilt by association. Do you really want me to find some of the sick and nutty things said by people on the right in order to “prove” Bush meant the things he said in my comment 84?

    Paul (462b6e)

  104. Freelancer, if in fact the military is as you state then I stand corrected. I will do some research on that but Kerry made his comments in 1972 and they may well have been true back then. I’m sure the military has changed in 34 years.

    Paul (462b6e)

  105. How many consecutive quarters of declining readership and revenues will it take before NY Times investors recognize that they are just not out of step with the nation, but with the NY metroplitan region as well. It would be sad to lose a newspaper like the NY Times, but they would only have themselves to blame.

    Donald (bddc31)

  106. Actually, I have not come across a single story that from the beginning made note of whom Kerry was addressing. He was addressing a college crowd in a school and therefore it is really plausable to believe Kerry meant the comment for the students and not Bush.

    There must have been a republican spy there who called the story in. And, I guess the journalist we have now-a-days have gotten their
    training at The Enquirer and other rags with the accent on ‘sensationalism’.

    Most of the journalist today suffer from a deficit
    in their honesty and definitely they seem to share the trait of “go after the liberals and you will get a lot of coverage”.

    Mary (92c009)

  107. Donald,

    Why would it be a shame to lose the NYT? No more Walter Durantys? No more tipping off the terrorists as to investigative techniques? No more slanted coverage misleading voters and promoting a top-heavy elitist view of the world? No more echo chamber for hate and envy thinly disguised as compassion?

    Presumably, you mean – correct me if I’m wrong – that we shouldn’t throw out the baby w/the bathwater, that the NYT has good writers and editors as well as bad ones. Fair enough.

    But if some of them are really any good, those ones’ll be able to land on their feet elsewhere; it’s just the bad ones who won’t. Sounds about right, actually. We’d keep the good ones and lose the bad one along w/the now-tainted packaging.

    ras (c7dc18)

  108. Media bias? What media bias?…

    How many newspapers carried this photo today?Only two.Thanks to Hugh Hewitt for the link!Now before my “comments” area fills with the question “Why does that show bias in the media?” Let me answer you.That photo made the rounds of the internet in….

    WhereAreMyKeys (b5f39f)

  109. Paul,

    Kerry made the comments he did in 1972, but you made the comments you did today.

    Kerry’s remarks about a volunteer army are not at all anti-military and stem from a realization that many people join the military for reasons other than patriotism and that the military is over represented by the poor and minorities. Sorry if that rocks your boat but it is the truth and to try and paint someone who says this as anti-military is dishonest.

    Is it now Kerry’s fault that you suggest facts which are not in evidence? Don’t bother responding, I withdraw the question. Change that is to was, and I wouldn’t have responded. Besides, there are so many more valid reasons for calling Kerry anti-military, like his voting record against funding every single major weapon system improvement since he took office.

    Patterico is precisely correct when he says that the NYT article is a lie.

    Premise 1: This piece of text is what Kerry intended to say:

    “Do you know where you end up if you don’t study, if you aren’t smart, if you’re intellectually lazy? You end up getting us stuck in a war in Iraq. Just ask President Bush.”

    Premise 2: Kerry left out the word us.

    The NYT provides those two premises, and leaves the reader to draw a conclusion. Only one conclusion logically follows, that what Kerry really did say was:

    “Do you know where you end up if you don’t study, if you aren’t smart, if you’re intellectually lazy? You end up getting stuck in a war in Iraq. Just ask President Bush.”

    That is not even close to Kerry’s actual quoted comment, but the article doesn’t help prevent this false conclusion. That is dishonest. If your child attempted this form of subterfuge, you wold rightly punish them for lying.

    That is the beginning and ending of Patterico’s point, and it is valid.

    Freelancer (cb897a)

  110. Patterico…I never heard of Patterico. I have an idea: why don’t you take on the NY Times, maybe then someone from the “base” will care about your opinion. Put on a dress and a blond wig and you could become a regular Ann Coulter. There’s real money in that.

    the dude (29571f)

  111. Paul,

    Thank you for your thoughtful and thorough response in #105. It makes it easier to know that I am debating someone with the intellectual honesty to reject the core belief expressed by John Kerry in his 1971 senate floor testimony or recently by Seymour Hersh that our soldiers are generally murderous. However, you do assert that they generally, regularly and (I assume) wrongfully bring terror to innocent civilians when you said in comment #91:

    Our soldiers routinely break into Iraqi homes at night. An action which terrorizes the occupants who consist of women and children.

    This certainly parallels some of John Kerry’s ’71 slander of our troops, which is troubling.

    You state in #105:

    I also think that in your comment 98 you are basicaly accusing Kerry of thought crime and guilt by association.

    I did no such thing. As to Kerry, his previous statements speak for themselves. You can dismiss them if you wish, but they help explain why people reacted so strongly to his current flap. He says his current flap was a misstatement, and I will take him at his word. But that does not alter that his most recent comment reopened the debate about the left’s attitude toward our armed service members and specifically reminded us of Kerry’s past accusations against our troops.

    My assertion as evidenced by Kerry’s and other’s statements is: The left generally holds deep contempt for our troops.

    As a fan of Kerry, you must also be a man of nuance. Certainly you can tell the difference between this and “accusing Kerry of thought crime and guilt by association.”

    JDK (af36b7)

  112. Sure, just keep fanning the flames you phonies. That way you don’t have to talk about the real issues: a failed war based on lies, corruption throughout the Republican Party, a phony war on terror based on fear, an absolute lack of Republican accomplishments despite full control of all three branches of the federal government, etc.

    But it’s a lot easier to try to keep this non-issue, involving someone who’s not even running for office, alive and simmering. Sorry, but it won’t work this time.

    BobH (1a1a51)

  113. What I find interesting is that the Poynter Online website which has no compunctions in jumping all over anything that Bush misspeaks has absolutely no record of anything that Kerry said. He is not even mentioned one time on this case. It was all shoved down a rabbit hole and forgotten immediately.

    I also find it interesting that their take on the court decision that the NYT must cough up the identity of their source on the anthrax case that Nick Kristof wrote about for so long is that the court is infringing on the freedom of the press.

    What I find interesting is that it is OK to ruin a man’s life by unsubstantiated rumors but it is not OK to require the press to be truthful about it all and verify the rumor before printing it. What then should we expect the press to do when it comes to reporting if they are not supposed to verify their stories. That is supposed to be their big advantage over blogs, that they have the resources to verify, but obviously it is not that important in their whole scheme of things. The same goes for this. They can misreport what Kerry said and it is not even a blip on the horizon. They can misreport what the president says and then dine out on it for years.

    dick (b8e957)

  114. Hey everybody, looks like we’ve lost BobH! Now we’re sunk!

    Geo W (593f16)

  115. Paul,

    Thank you for responding to Freelancer with respect, we look forward to the result of your investigation.

    You will probably find that the educational status is higher now than in Vietnam, as I don’t believe you can get in anymore without a high school education. (Which may not be all good, as recent US Surgeon General Richard Carmona, grad of UCSF med school and trauma surgeon, went into the military without a high school diploma but worked to get his GED because he wanted to get into Special forces.)

    But do you have any support for our troops “routinely breaking into homes at night and terrorizing women and children” other than John Kerry saying it in the months following his loss in the Presidential election?

    It would be nice if we could all agree that bad and irresponsible journalism is just that, and it should not be tolerated, because if the reporting is faulty we either believe false info or get to the point where we don’t bother believing anything anymore, then the only ones who are happy are those who don’t care about the facts anyway.

    After looking at the YouTube clip numerous times, I still don’t believe he muffed a joke about Bush, but if patterico and others who are not partisan think it was a muffed presidential joke I will need to disagree with respect.

    It would also be nice to look at things with a bit of common sense and perspective. We all know President Bush has plenty of malapropisms. Listening to him the other day sounded a bit like listening to Jimmy Stewart stammering a bit. Hence, when he says something that makes us say, “What was that again?”, some may think that is a sign of stupidity, but we should all agree that he does that, and if he says, “I’m sorry, I meant to say…” we have cause to believe him. If someone is not known for misspeaking, then we are less certain if it was the rare goof or a Freudian slip. It is not an issue of “applying the same standards”, but applying the appropriate standards.

    If someone believes that the US soldier in Vietnam was typically a goon, and that the current US soldier in Iraq is a goon, then it is not understandable why many are really upset. But if you think that the typical US soldier is a professional in a literal life and death situation, fighting for the security of our nation, then whether Kerry flubbed a joke about the president or not is secondary to the reminder of how much he has done to harm the reputation of the US military over the years. And such harm is not without consequences. Hundreds of thousands of people died in Southeast Asia when we refused to honor the commitment we agreed to at the Paris Peace Accords.

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  116. Paul, re: 106,

    You said you’d do some research on the demographic composition of today’s military.

    Who Bears the Burden? Demographic Characteristics of U.S. Military Recruits Before and After 9/11

    That should help. It is almost exactly one year old. The most relevant commentary:

    We found that recruits tend to come from mid­dle-class areas, with disproportionately fewer from low-income areas. Overall, the income dis­tribution of military enlistees is more similar to than different from the income distribution of the general population

    We find that, on average, recruits tend to be much more highly educated than the general pub­lic and that this education disparity increased after the war on terrorism began

    We found that whites are one of the most pro­portionally represented groups—making up 77.4 percent of the population and 75.8 percent of all recruits—whereas other racial categories are often represented in noticeably higher and lower propor­tions than the general population… [T]he data show that, proportionally, blacks make up 43 percent more of the Army recruits than does the general population, but this is not in place of whites, who make up 1 percent more (not less)…

    The demographic data on race reveal that mili­tary enlistees are not, in fact, more heavily recruited from black neighborhoods

    Put simply, the current makeup of the all-vol­untary military looks like America. Where they are different, the data show that the average sol­dier is slightly better educated and comes from a slightly wealthier, more rural area. We found that the military (and Army specifically) included a higher proportion of blacks and lower propor­tions of other minorities but a proportionate num­ber of whites. More important, we found that recruiting was not drawing disproportionately from racially concentrated areas.

    In re-reading the article, I realize that my statements in #101 above are not accurate, and I apologize for that. But my primary point, that active duty military are NOT disproportionately minority, poor, or undereducated, is factual.

    Freelancer (cb897a)

  117. Um, how does anyone know what line came after the joke? I don’t see a video or transcript anywhere that references the very next statement.

    Joe (21e89d)

  118. Does anybody ever believe anything the New York Times ever says anymore? MSM journalism is on a steady downhill road, and the NYT is leading the pack. Don’t buy the paper, ar anything related with the business – maybe they’ll go away in a few years.

    Meanwhile – you honest Journalists out there… Please keep writing & reporting. After a while you really stand out from the crowd. Thanks.

    historybuff (eac2ce)

  119. There are more Dems trying to change the subject today than yesterday, which is telling.

    It’s hard to quantify the damage that Kerry did to the Dems, but it’s enough that the NYT, media bastion of liberalism and Dem support, deemed Kerry’s remarks damaging enough that they dared not publish the real quote, so it’s at least that much. That’s a lot.

    ras (c7dc18)

  120. She’s referring to “prepared remarks” .. ie the remarks he was meant to follow rather than the words he spoke. That’s clear from her copy so you’ve actually completely misrepresented the story and created a nice little straw man. Don’t you have better things to do? (Indeed, what the hell am I bothering for!)

    Surfer (552674)

  121. Why do you bother? I don’t know, but I’m glad you do. You provide some unintended comic relief with your complete inability to read simple English.

    Patterico (de0616)

  122. And the left fights back by outing another allegedly gay conservative. (Yahoo link that will not last.)

    nk (ca8012)

  123. The more I think about it, Patterico, the more I kinda agree with Surfer. By lying the NYT was really telling the truth kind of like Kerry.

    Christoph (9824e6)

  124. Charles Johnson of LGF says it best here, Patterico, and I really think you should read and consider his viewpoint.

    It’s only 1-paragraph and 1-sentence long.

    Christoph (9824e6)

  125. Oh John Kerry.

    A little birdie told me this is a Democrat supporting website although I haven’t verified that personally.

    Nonetheless, it should win the prize for political cartoon of the year.

    Da prizhe 4 pic ahv da yeer shood stil go too da troupes.

    Christoph (9824e6)

  126. It’s ridiculous that NYT would cover for Kerry like that. It’s embarassing! I don’t know. Maybe the NYT should look at its roll in the matter of Iraq. It pushed a lot of the WMD stuff for many years. And Kerry bought that stuff too.

    David (5cc619)

  127. Patterico,

    I think you should take a second look at The Dude’s comment #112. Have you considered “taking on” a large city newspaper? You could read and critique the articles and perhaps even summarize your conclusions and post them online. With links! Yeah, that’s the ticket.

    You really should consider doing that someday. Who knows, perhaps The Dude and others like him would read your blog and make you famous like Ann Coulter.

    DRJ (1be297)

  128. Well, the NY times doesn’t get read much way out here on the west coast…besides…we already knew they were liars, ( and probably traitors too)…and all their reporters think we’re “stoopid peeple” and they can tell us anything and we’ll believe it…..

    SORRY….can you just imagine if “Lurch” had actually been elected????? God saved us!!!!

    That’ll drive all the liberals nuts….good !!!
    They already are….

    jerry robertson (56f4d2)

  129. YouTube is now a Google apparatus. Does anybody here really trust Google over the long haul to be fair and balanced?

    Zeb Quinn (f32a98)

  130. As if I needed another reason to hate that cheese eating, three-purple-hearts-without-a-day-in-the-hospital Frenchman, Kerry.

    Thanks for the heads up on the NYT and Zernike – I chuckle every time I see something about how the big newspapers are losing money and cutting jobs (my sympathies to the individuals affected to the degree they are not liberal). I wonder what their explanation might be – certainly not that ever fewer and fewer people remain willing to buy their crap.

    Perhaps this offshoring craze should include the NYT – then when the foreign nationals publicize secret intelligence programs, it wouldn’t be treason.

    kevin (8dbfa9)

  131. Move Over John Kerry, Or More Leftist Democratic Slander And Defamation Of Our Troops!!!

    From Hyscience:
    http://www.hyscience.com/archives/2006/11/more_leftist_de.php

    As the November elections fast approach, it seems that it is “Open Season” out there on our military; and not only by Al Qaeda and the insurgents!

    We all know about past statements being made by prominent Democratic leaders such as Senator Durbin, comparing our military men and women, and Gitmo, to “Nazis,” the “Russian Gulag,” and “Pol Pot.” And who can ever forget Representative John Murtha calling our soldiers “murderers,” or the infamous Senator Kerry saying they “terrorized Iraqi women and children in the middle of the night”??? But you would have imagined – especially after the recent Kerry insult to our troops in Iraq, which has stirred so much controversy and rightful condemnation of the Senator, who categorized them, by inference, of being uneducated oafs and underachievers, who “got stuck in Iraq” for “lack of an education” – that barely days away from the elections, the Democrats and their liberal, far-left, radical, socialist allies, would have the gall of being so brazen, as to continue to heap vilification and invectives on our troops! But then, Seymour Hersh does not feel constrained by any such considerations when it comes to dedicating himself to his ignominious “Life’s Work” of denigrating and defaming our military and of spewing his ideological venom!!!

    So, here we are, barely five days from the elections, and Seymour M. Hersh, the Pulitzer prize winning vermin who broke both, the so called “Mai Lai Massacre” back during Viet Nam, and recently the “Abu Ghraib scandal” in Iraq, and who has dedicated his worthless life to only rabidly seek for, and dredge up as much muck and mud as he can possibly sling at or impugn upon our military, is at it once again; this time at a Canadian University!!!

    According to a report on the O’Reilly Factor, on Fox, Mr. Hersh is reputed to have told his audience at the Canadian institution of learning (or is that of “indoctrination”?) that, quote: “There’s never been an American Army as violent and murderous as our Army in Iraq”!!!

    Imagine that! And I was under the impression that our military has been so overly “restrained” in Iraq by our “politically correct,” “sensitive,” politicians – against the barbarity of the terrorist insurgents and their heinous, truly murderous methods, such as IEDs and suicide bombings – that for the most part, they can be accused of rather being “sitting ducks,” when instead they should be mowing down mercilessly all these savages in their lairs without any compunction! Rather that these murderous Jihadists die, than our brave young men giving up their noble lives, trying to make a “Democracy” of their damned, forsaken, rat hole in the sand… for the Islamic Iraqi ingrates!!!

    And one has to ask in earnest, how the American citizenship, so eagerly sought by so many from all over the world willing to die to get to our shores, to enjoy what Mr. Hersh and his fellow Democratic “demagogues” so much “hate” and “detest,” namely America, is not stricken from them, and they are banned for good from our shores?!?!

    Perhaps, it is high time that “citizenship” be not granted by blind birth (also the case with “Anchor Babies”), but by meritorious, and responsible civil service to our nation, and that such as Hersh, Kerry, Durbin, Pelosi, and their “Hate America” ilk have it stricken from them for good…who so despise the country and its institutions, while cynically taking full advantages of them, and of the unparalleled, unearned, Freedoms granted them!!!

    And, no, don’t give me any of that crap about Kerry’s “Purple Heart,” “Bronze Star,” and the rest of his military “Regalia”! His treasonous actions back in the days of the Viet Nam War, his cuddling of the North Vietnamese in Paris with his willing advancement and abetting of their “agenda,” and his staged, infamous, false defamation of his fellow soldiers during the Congressional Hearings in 1971, amply negate any merits on his part; and even makes one think if he did not intend to get as many such “decorations” as he could, in the first place, with the intent of using his “Decorated War Veteran” prestige, as a “credible” bully pulpit from which to spew his leftists, anti-military ideology…as he did!

    John Kerry may have as many ill-earned “medals” and “ribbons” on his chest as any “Tin-pot North Korean General in a Kim Jong-il Parade,” but he remains, in his heart of hearts, what he truly really is: “A Traitor” !!!

    Benedict Arnold was also a “Decorated Officer.” Had he lived in our times, undoubtedly he would have been just another “Senator in Washington” with a “differing opinion,” like Kerry and his ilk, and his “treason,” and or “Patriotism,” just as with the Democrats now in Washington, would not today be “questioned”!!!

    Simply amazing! Open up your eyes America!

    Althor

    Althor (ee9fe2)

  132. The problem is the non-apology given by Kerry: he apologizes for the dumb folks who didn’t understand what he meant to say and who put out a misrepresentation of his comments by failing to read his notes or his mind. He never apologizes for how those sacrifcing everything to keep us safe might have heard his precise words to mean that he was saying that they were stupid. This is critical evidence of how out of touch our would be president is, and how he doesn’t understand that his own words prove him as being mendacious.

    magold (866f57)

  133. It’s stupid to keep defending Kerry’s mistake. He offended military personnel. It took 4 or 5 tries at an apology before he got around to saying, “I messed up and I’m sorry.” THAT’S the problem.

    sharon (dfeb10)

  134. I may have missed it but supposedly Zernike is quoting from the “prepared remarks”. You know that typed copy of the speech that is handed out afterwards. I wonder how log after it was handed out? Long enough, I bet, to have fixed the wording to make it a different joke.

    I mean just look at Kerry – would anyone trust him to deliver a joke? No way would they let him do that! No he opened his mouth and out stupidity spilled.

    Rich (018949)

  135. […] Patterico’s Pontifications » New York Times Lies to Its Readers About the Content of Kerry’s Remarks What makes this piece so outrageous is that it flat-out lies about what Kerry said.That’s right. I’ll repeat it, because it’s so jaw-dropping: in the piece linked above, the New York Times tells a straight lie about the actual content of Kerry’s remarks. […]

    Justus For All » New York Times Lies (718493)

  136. “When you’re old enough to sit in a bar and drink a beer with me and not need me to point out your milk moustache, then we can do that, ok? Till then, you should probably get back to Spongebob.”

    -sharon

    Well, I *never*… Must be that time of month, eh, sharon?

    Now, allow me to elaborate on that totally inappropiate comment: I can’t control my age, just like you can’t control your gender. What’s more, my age doesn’t make me inferior to you, just like your gender doesn’t make you inferior to me (although each would’ve been claimed in a bygone era; Thank God we live in modern America, right?)

    And, while I understand that my frequent posts exude an aura of unfettered sex appeal, I must decline your offer to “have a drink”. I can’t hold my milk…it lowers my inhibitions.

    Leviticus (43095b)

  137. John Kerry’s tortured, circumlocutious “apology” is no apology. I know an apology when I encounter one. Mr. Kerry’s so-called belated “apology” is just yet again more blatant duplicity & prevarication from this weasel to “us”, unenlightened masses. His choice of a begrudging, unremorseful attempt at an apology just reiterates and perpetuates the original insult.

    Speaking of apologies . . . . in my opinion he’s still several delinquent apologies short. When will this despicable little man apologize to the Vietnam era veterans that he has repeatedly insulted for the last several decades.

    What this stumblebum needs to do is resign his office while he apologies profusely as he disappears from view. Perhaps the rich widow will hire this joke of a human being to count the ketchup money.

    D.T. Miller (ec3ef4)

  138. Leviticus,

    I think your entire comment just proved my point.

    sharon (dfeb10)

  139. The Times has appended a Correction. Whether this will appear in the print version & where, I don’t know:
    Correction: Nov. 3, 2006
    A Political Memo article yesterday about the fallout for Senator John Kerry over what he called a “botched joke” referred incompletely to the differences between prepared remarks and what he actually said about the Iraq war to students at Pasadena City College in California on Monday. Mr. Kerry not only dropped the word “us,” but he also rephrased his opening sentence extensively and omitted a reference to President Bush. Mr. Kerry’s aides said that the prepared text read: “Do you know where you end up if you don’t study, if you aren’t smart, if you’re intellectually lazy? You end up getting us stuck in a war in Iraq. Just ask President Bush.” What he said: “You know, education, if you make the most of it, you study hard, you do your homework and you make an effort to be smart, you can do well. If you don’t, you get stuck in Iraq.”

    I worked as a reporter. Kate Zernike likely was so intent to absolve Kerry that she confused the claimed prepared version with the spoken words.

    If one goes through the Kerry list, one finds that only a crazed fanatic would think they applied to Bush. To take the last item, about doing well: most people think that becoming President of the US is doing well. John Kerry surely does. The rest of the items fall away, especially in any Bush-Kerry comparison. It’s hardly a joke when one’s saying things so distant from reality and it’s even less of a joke when one engages in crass personal insult.

    Further, this Massachusetts voter had to laugh at the “reliable redoubt of liberal caricatures” claim. Zernike is imagining what’s in the minds of conservatives, or better, her Other. And she’s dismissing the objections with, well, a MoDo-type caricature of her own. Ms Zernike should go far at The Times.

    Alfred J. Lemire (70baff)

  140. Oh, were you also making the point that age doesn’t matter in these discussions? I’m sorry, I must’ve misunderstood. The whole “Spongebob” thing threw me off.

    Way to be specific, by the way.

    Leviticus (43095b)

  141. Mike S – “Mr. Kerry did not mean to disparage the troops, in that he did not intend to talk about the troops in that comment. He was talking about education, and because it was an unscripted comment, he relied on his own opinion of something bad that could happen to the students if they didn’t take their schoolwork seriously. He would not normally let that opinion out, but he spoke before he thought, and now it is out there.”

    I’m sorry if I am just repeating what someone else has already said, but, if he was talking about education, why did he say immediately before the “joke” that “We’re here to talk about education, but I want to say something before”.

    LS (a90377)

  142. Joe #119,

    See comment #70.

    JDK (af36b7)

  143. i think leviticus and sharon should go out on a date. why don’t you two exchange email addresses? sharon, a younger man can be incredibly invigorating and make you feel younger too. you’ll be able to train him correctly in the ways of pleasure. you’ll be the envy of all your female friends.

    assistant devil's advocate (cc1beb)

  144. Now, allow me to elaborate on that totally inappropiate comment: I can’t control my age, just like you can’t control your gender. What’s more, my age doesn’t make me inferior to you, just like your gender doesn’t make you inferior to me (although each would’ve been claimed in a bygone era; Thank God we live in modern America, right?)

    And, while I understand that my frequent posts exude an aura of unfettered sex appeal, I must decline your offer to “have a drink”. I can’t hold my milk…it lowers my inhibitions.

    -Leviticus

    Sorry, but to say age doesn’t make it inferior is just absurd poltical correctness. Age isn’t everything, but its sure makes the playing field unequal. And unless you’re really that reality challenged to understand that people who are older than you actually do have more experience, more knowledge, more skill,…. than you do, then re-read your own post in 5 years, maybe then you’ll understand. Look, you may be smart, but to argue that age doesn’t matter is pretty stupid. At least you do have a sense of humor though.

    G (722480)

  145. What is totally ludicrous, Cristoph, is that this man John Kerry would be a sitting Senator, and would have ever been nominated to become a President, when he has a clear track record of 35 years of being a “TRAITOR”!!!

    “VOTE DEMOCRAT IN 1776! SAY NO TO WAR! VOTE BENEDICT ARNOLD FOR PRESIDENT!”

    Althor

    Althor (ee9fe2)

  146. Well, G, here’s a quick test:

    1) Are there immature old people?

    2) Are there mature young people?

    3) Do you know anything about me besides my age?

    If you answered “Yes, Yes, No” you should probably throw pretension out the window and take my comments at face value.

    We can agree on one thing, though…my outrageous sense of humor.

    assistant devil’s advocate…

    If asses could be kicked through computer screens, sharon would be after yours right now. I, on the other hand, think you’re a real “card” (how’s that for an archaic term?).

    As per your suggestion… she certainly would be the envy of all her female friends, but I’m not sure my fragile psyche could handle the whole “Mrs. Robinson” thing.

    sharon, I think it’s best we keep our relationship strictly platonic.

    Leviticus (3c2c59)

  147. While I did answer the obvious “Yes, Yes, No.” I stand by my statement, and I’ll basically state this, Knowing nothing about you other than the fact that you are under 21, you are inferior to the person you will be in 5 years.

    G (722480)

  148. Leviticus, Kerry made a stupid remark insulting troops. Then, instead of just apologizing for it (which he first claimed he would not do, then later did… continuing his tradition of flipping back and forth), he made a spectacle of himself, further demonstrating his complete and utter incompetence. Please, don’t do the same thing. There are older, wiser people here than you. Don’t be a fool and continue arguing. Either shut up or prove to be an idiot.

    LS (a90377)

  149. “And, while I understand that my frequent posts exude an aura of unfettered sex appeal, I must decline your offer to “have a drink”. I can’t hold my milk…it lowers my inhibitions.”

    Patterico. Ban Leviticus.

    nk (47858f)

  150. Oh, were you also making the point that age doesn’t matter in these discussions? I’m sorry, I must’ve misunderstood. The whole “Spongebob” thing threw me off.

    Way to be specific, by the way.
    If asses could be kicked through computer screens, sharon would be after yours right now. I, on the other hand, think you’re a real “card” (how’s that for an archaic term?).

    As per your suggestion… she certainly would be the envy of all her female friends, but I’m not sure my fragile psyche could handle the whole “Mrs. Robinson” thing.

    sharon, I think it’s best we keep our relationship strictly platonic.

    Comment by Leviticus — 11/3/2006 @ 12:13 pm

    Please, Leviticus, just stop. You already look like an ass and you just keep making it worse. The problem isn’t merely your age, something that time will remedy. It’s your immature attitude about argument and debate. You have previously argued that adults “sold out” their ideals, a comment that shows how little you understand about growing up, having responsibilities, and choosing priorities as life changes.

    Now, instead of giving a mature answer to my snark about the fact that you think you can debate policy issues but you aren’t even old enough to drink, you launch into what you obviously thought was a clever and sexist remark that was supposed to “put me in my place.” As I said last time, your post simply proves my point. If you want to discuss issues, try growing up a little first. When you can read your previous 2 comments to me and realize what an ass you made of yourself, then maybe you’ll be ready to actually debate anything.

    sharon (dfeb10)

  151. Let’s lighten this up a bit with some appropriate humor!

    From Hyscience: http://www.hyscience.com/archives/2006/11/vote_democrat_i.php

    “VOTE DEMOCRAT IN 1780″ ?!?!
    Topics: Humor

    Ever wondered what the political positions, and talking-points, of today’s Democrats would have been like in 1780? Let us see then! But, warning: “Any resemblance to real persons living or dead, and or to present political positions and or situations, is ‘eerily’ NOT COINCIDENTAL”!

    Talking-points of anti-war, secular progressive, peacenik Democrats had they been around during the Revolutionary War:

    From the “New York Continental Times” just days before Continental Congress elections:

    “The war is going badly, and the country is divided by this unpopular war! Our young men are dying, and our Generals in the field are losing the battles in this unwinnable war! Stop the war now! VOTE DEMOCRAT IN 1780! VOTE BENEDICT ARNOLD!”

    “Vote Benedict Arnold, to replace that murderous despot George Washington, who even has ‘Conscientious War Dissenters’ whom he disingenuously calls ‘deserters’ executed for refusing to fight!”

    “Vote to replace this hateful man who has lost most of his battles and skirmishes in this unnecessary, and prolonged war that has cost the lives of so many of our young men, and who even failed to provide appropriately for his troops in winter at Valley Forge and to equip them with the proper gear; as some of our soldiers did not even had shoes to wear!”

    “George Washington lied to the American Colonists proposing this hare-brained idea of ‘Democracy’ in our fractured, sectarian, 13 provinces! We’ll never get the Puritans to agree with the Quakers as to the role of marriage, sex, and procreation in the community, or farmers to agree with city dwellers over taxes on grain alcohol; and so, we should divide this concocted ‘Republic’ into 13 loosely Federated Colonies, instead of one huge hulking nation! George Washington and those who want to have a ‘Republic’ and call themselves ‘Republicans’ are taking this country in the wrong direction! Washington and his cronies have involved us in this war only because they stand to gain from not having to pay their due ‘taxes’ to the Crown on the produce of their extensive estates! And we all have seen how the price of grain has risen! It is all a conspiracy!”

    “As General Arnold has denounced, our troops are barging-in, under the cover of the darkness of night, into the homes of innocent ‘Tories,’ just because they are suspected of harboring and aiding the British, quote ‘terrifying women and children in the middle of the night’!”

    “It is all but a reprehensible ‘Republican’ plot, that General Benedict Arnold’s recent wise remarks to our young people, quote:

    ‘You know, education, if you make the most of it at Harvard, if you study hard and you do your Greek and Latin, and you make an effort to be smart, uh, you, you can do well. If you don’t, you get stuck in Valley Forge’

    have been twisted by these desperate so called ‘Washington Republicans,’ who wish to use them as a distraction from addressing the real issues concerning this failed war of George Washington, and who have even had the audacity to demand that General Arnold ‘apologizes to our troops’! It is simply ludicrous! It is obvious to all of us concerned anti-war protesters, who habitually sit here at the Continental Inn sipping our French ‘Lattes’ and exchanging ideas about what social order and economic model best to impose upon the Colonies, that we hold this truth to be self evident: Only the sons of unlearned and uncouth oafs and farmers would be stupid enough to support G.W. and follow him into the battlefield in this immoral war! We know best!”

    “George Washington has repeatedly stated that ‘we must stay the course’! Benedict Arnold, on the other hand, will have ‘bi-lateral talks,’ and will engage in ‘shuttle diplomacy’ with the British. He will negotiate a lasting peace that will bring stability to the region; unlike Washington!”

    “We demand that our troops be withdrawn from the battlefield and all the carnage immediately, and be ‘re-deployed’ in the Indian Territories, to protect our borders instead!”

    “Let us vote all these ‘Republican’ Congressmen at our Continental Congress, who have supported and ‘rubber-stamped’ George Washington’s failed policies of ‘expansionism’ out of office!”

    “VOTE AGAINST THE WAR! VOTE DEMOCRATIC! VOTE BENEDICT ARNOLD! LET’S IMPEACH GEORGE WASHINGTON, DECOMMISSION HIM, AND SEND HIM BACK TO HIS FARM !”

    Now, doesn’t that sound “familiar”????

    Althor :)

    Althor (ee9fe2)

  152. You gotta hand it to Sharon, she may be older but she’s a card. “Now, instead of giving a mature answer to my snark about the fact that you think……”

    Leviticus, how dare you not give a mature answer to her snark. Now go to your room and don’t come out till you can play nice.

    Paul (24af80)

  153. @leviticus:
    i’m sorry to hear that your fragile psyche can’t handle pleasuring our own mrs. robinson. i remember with great fondness the older women who generously gave of their time to school me when i was your age. here’s benjamin franklin on the subject:
    http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/index.asp?document=468
    i can tell from her comments that sharon is intrigued at least. i can see her there at her keyboard, looking up, becoming distracted with the notion that has burrowed into her mind, wondering what it would be like. she’s an unchained female animal with a volcanic reservoir of pent-up passion. your fragile psyche will do just fine if you obey her every wish, submit yourself to her ardor, become her love-slave. start by inviting her to a starbucks for a latte.

    assistant devil's advocate (23a7d9)

  154. Quote: “…she’s an unchained female animal with a volcanic reservoir of pent-up passion. your fragile psyche will do just fine if you obey her every wish…”

    …And if not, there’s those famous “Male Enhancement pills.” As the commercial would say: “For all other things there is Mastercard; an arousal: priceless!”

    LMAO!

    Althor 😀

    Althor (ee9fe2)

  155. Chantez à l’âne, il vous fera des pêts.

    mokus (539ee5)

  156. Kerry lies, has lied and can be expected to lie again and again; like our often disappointing President Clinton, he is a liar anytime events put him in peril and a grudging apologist.

    It is obvious YOU Tube is the wave of the future; the New York times is tired, old and has lost credibility. It is apparent that it was not unusual for young Mr. Blair to have lied; after all, one has to look no farther that yesterday’s newspaper for even more lies in the New York Times .

    It would be better if it changed its name to the Daily Democrat than to resort to masquerading as a newspaper of record when it is not.

    Whether it is the paper version or the electronic, the media are just that, media. They are really advertising agencies, providing the minimum amount of content required to create the viewer or reader base on which the advertising rates are based.

    Where the newspaper or the TV source tilts too far to one side, it clearly alienates those of the side being prejudiced.

    The declining audience for these antiques is akin to the fate of the Memphis bus system when its black consumers chose to protest a one-sided seating policy.

    If the New York newspaper wants to avoid becoming just another curiosity in the Neweum, it will decide whether it wants to go on influencing discussions in all the country or restrict its scope to New York city and surrounding territory.

    Its revenues will suffer and it will have to adjust if it chooses the latter course, but it will survive. If it does neither, that disgustihng Mr. “Pinch” will just have to develop a taste for mediocrity.

    Our family — 6 children and an extended family of over 200 — used to subscribe to both the NY Times and the Washington Post, courtesy of the patriarch.

    No longer, he does not give them as gifts and we do not choose to pay to hear and see our values stomped on and ridiculed.

    We are mostly independent business and professional people; we look forward to the end of our school system that spends money but does not educate our people with job skills.

    We favor charter schools, God in all our lives, honest politicians and journalists instead of opinion mongers seeking our $$$, without a care in the world for our opinions.

    My father was an entertainer, an employee of CBS for awhile and an ardent Democrat. I am happy he is not around to see his party that has become a haven for the likes of Barney Frank while your paper dwells on a man who wrote e-mails to pages after it ignored a President who used his power to abuse women who worked for him or were interns in our own government. Thanks to the New York times and the rest of the apologists, we who are competent parents have a far more difficult time getting our children to understand that regardless of whether or not oral sex (BJ’s or Clintons) is actually “sex”, it is not acceptable behavior in a juvenile.

    My son in Iraq is in his third tour of VOLUNTEER duty and does not want to be “redeployed”. He considers the New York Times and CNN as the most despicible of our news organizations and if he survives plans to run for office and sponsor legislation to define the crimes of treason, sedition and receiving stolen property as applicable to newspapers that solicit and/or receive stolen government documents or tapes created by terrorists to be run for free on national TV to discourage our people while we are engaged in a conflict in which American lives are in jeopardy on foreign soil.

    Furthermore, he says he and many others have the tapes of the live broadcasts when the Islamic terrorists attacked us at the World Trade Centers and they watch them each evening instead of watching the traitorous newscasts of ABC, CBS, CNN or NBC. They do record the news broadcasts and then make it a point to boycott every advertiser.

    When the conservative movement began in the 1960’s as a response to the unfettered behavior of the radicals of that period, it was hardly noticed but in 1984, it blossomed under the banner of the “Contract with America”. Every item of the contract was fulfilled, except the vote for limiting of terms of office. That is one that will require the agreement by 2/3rds of “We, the people…” I suspect, but again the debate will pass by the old media and occur in cafes and on the Web all across the plains.

    Too bad, but it is easy to see how Google, eBay, Wickipedia, and all the rest of the new media are rolling in the $$$$ because their respective readerships are blossoming, aren’t they?

    To quote a moderator on public tv, who has the screeching bird-brain democrat as one of his panel members, “Bye-bye, New York Times.” One day we believe it will be less of a memory than are the Brooklyn Dodgers — we still have the Dodgers, but they sure aren’t in Brooklyn, NY are they?

    Bard on the Ohio (6a4527)

  157. “we favor charter schools, god in all our lives…”
    how incredibly arrogant. not everybody here subscribes to the notion of a christian god. as a pagan, i’m happy to tell you to keep your fucking god out of my life, and when the battle reaches my doorstep, i’ll back that up with force of arms.

    assistant devil's advocate (ac538a)

  158. how incredibly arrogant … keep your fucking god out of my life.

    Nothing like a little projection and bigotry, ada.

    ROFL.

    Darleen (03346c)

  159. hi darleen. who is the aggressor here? i don’t try to impose my faith on others, part of paganism is that you must come freely to it of your own accord. we don’t try to regulate the sexual practices of our neighbors, you do. we claim no dominion over the bodies of our women, you do. we’re not interested in censoring the public dialogue, you are. we don’t have an extraordinarially warlike, belligerent central scripture we take as the word of “god”, you do. we don’t have a two millennium history of exploiting and enslaving indigenous peoples, you do.
    mister bard in ohio is calling for a religious war. that’s what “god in all our lives” means; the conversion or slaughter of all the unbelievers. i didn’t address all the other crap in his comment, the revival of sedition laws, his son who apparently can’t get a better job back in the states, the loving christian character of the author and chief promoter of the “contract with america”, newt gingrich, because it wasn’t as important. my unwillingness to inflict my faith upon you should not be construed as unwillingness to defend it.
    the real projection and bigotry here can be found in your comment. like so many other christians, you view rejection of christianity as bigotry and persecution directed at you. when we take offense at your efforts to control us, you claim we are attacking you. when we insist that the state scrupulously refrain from establishing a religion, you claim we are attacking christmas.

    i’m really looking forward to mau-mauing you guys when the election returns come in tuesday night.

    assistant devil's advocate (ac538a)

  160. ada

    the phrase you went all Christophobe on was “God in our lives”… not “God in YOUR” life.

    WHO is regulating sex lives of neighbors? What ARE you babbling about? Are you confusing reality with a Monty Python “No one expects the Spanish Inquisition” skit?

    Censoring the public dialogue is full time effort on the part of the ACLU (see lawsuits against LA Country Board of Supervisors, City of Redlands, et al. Also see the numerous University “speech codes”)

    we don’t have a two millennium history of exploiting and enslaving indigenous peoples, you do.

    Don’t know much history, do you?

    you view rejection of christianity as bigotry

    Hey, reject it all you want. But prejudice against Christians and the willingness to force ghetto-izing them is all too apparent in your bigoted remarks.

    Darleen (03346c)

  161. […] As it becomes apparent to them that fewer and fewer people do — for good reason — perhaps their use of anonymous sources will diminish. […]

    Patterico’s Pontifications » Trusting Others’ Anonymous Sources (421107)

  162. Quote: “how incredibly arrogant … keep your fucking god out of my life.”

    Comment by assistant devil’s advocate — 11/4/2006 @ 1:41 pm

    “He” is out of your life Ass. of the Devil Advocate! Your words prove it!

    When that person said: “we favor charter schools, god in all our lives…” he was obviously referring to “his” and “himself” and not to the likes of you!

    But, a couple of points. “He Who Is The Eternal One” does not need to “procreate,” so your
    “adjective” does not apply. I can understand,however, that in all likelihood “fucking” is one of the few “adjectives” in your “extensive vocabulary,” and that is why you used it, i.e: “the fucking car,” “the fucking job,” “the fucking house,” etc, etc, etc…

    But, talking about “arrogance” and “procreation,” why don’t you go and “attempt to procreate rectally with” yourself, and lighten up a bit! Eh?

    Althor :)

    Althor (ee9fe2)

  163. Having have watched that clip of Kerry’s insult several times, we keep coming to the same conclusion. Someone else must have noticed this, so we may not be the first to draw attention to it.

    Kerry says he botched the joke. But play the actual clip.

    Notice that he actually looked down and read the line just as he was delivering it.

    There was even a little hesitation there as he located it, read it, and looked up only to deliver the last phrase,

    “If you don’t, you get stuck in Iraq.”

    Hey, maybe Kerry’s explanation should have been that somebody botched the typing!

    Trochilos (71415b)

  164. @darleen:
    the phrase was “god in all our lives”, not “god in our lives”. doesn’t “all” mean “everybody”?
    @althor:
    i never mentioned procreation. darleen was first to mention “projection” and i just echoed it back at her. do try to read more carefully.
    your speculation about “he who is the eternal one” not needing to “procreate” made me smile. as i understand christian doctrine, man was created in god’s image. it necessarily follows that the christian god has a dick and a pair of balls. humans so equipped have sexual urges. there’s god on his throne, and the hormones being secreted in his divine nutsack must occasionally drive him to distraction. i’d love to hear your speculation about how he satisfies his drives. at least the greek gods were upfront about this; zeus turned into a swan to rape leda, and apollo was not always successful in his courtships (something i can identify with).

    assistant devil's advocate (420d69)

  165. @a.d.a. Don’t go off on Althor for your lack of understanding of Christianity. When it says that man was created in God’s image, it is talking about man being created with the spirit of God, not the physical appearance.
    -LS

    LS (9f37aa)

  166. sorry for the double post, but I forgot to say something to old a.d.a.
    the word “all” can mean a number of things. The word “all” in this case was referring directly back to the family of “Bard of the Ohio”, not as you said in #168 “everyone”.
    If you don’t believe me, go back to #160. He consistently refers to the family. Read from paragraph 9 through paragraph 12.

    LS (9f37aa)

  167. http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/2006/10/john_kerry_get_an_education_or_get_stuck_in_iraq/trackback/kerry-fisking

    Quite possibly the most amazing thing to come out of this entire Senator Kerry debacle is the number of people who are willing to defend Kerry’s comments, no matter how irrational or illogical their comments may be.  I will not……

    walls of the city (540728)

  168. “Leviticus, Kerry made a stupid remark insulting troops…Either shut up or prove to be an idiot.”

    -LS

    Well, my replies, respectively, are “No shit” and “No”.

    I know that Kerry insulted the troops, didn’t apologize, is an idiot, etc. I never argued these points.

    As for the second half of your comment, I’d rather continue to “be an idiot” than be shamed into silence by a lameass, lesser-of-two-evils decision provided to me by someone who thinks his age makes his opinions superior to mine.

    “It’s your immature attitude about argument and debate”

    -sharon

    You mean my “immature attitude about argument and debate” that YOU NEVER MENTIONED BEFORE I TOLD YOU MY AGE? Hmmm…

    “You have previously argued that adults “sold out” their ideals, a comment that shows how little you understand about growing up, having responsibilities, and choosing priorities as life changes.”

    -sharon

    I argued that SOME adults compromise the ideals of youth as soon as it becomes economically viable, something I’m sure you would agree with.

    I don’t know where you get off telling me about “choosing priorities as life changes”. What do think I did when I left high school? I left behind friends I’d cherished for 4 years, the best friends I’ve ever had, in order to pursue a fulfilling education. I forsake drinking continuously (regardless of its prevalence on campus) in order to maintain the trust of my parents. What do you call these things, sharon? Childish nonsense?

    By the way, I apologize for not answering your immature snark with a mature platitude. I realize that I am the one who should be acting like the adult in this situation.

    “Patterico. Ban Leviticus.”

    -nk

    Go ahead, P. If these cowards are going to discount whatever I say because I’m younger than they are, then there’s really no point in my being here, is there? So much for the appearance of open-mindedness, right?

    Besides, I’d just come back with a different email address from a different computer under a different handle, and none of your self-righteous elders would notice that I was the same 17 year old kid as before (unless I was naive enough to tell them again).

    P.S.
    nk… My condolences, sincerely.

    Leviticus (43095b)

  169. Leviticus- you’re fighting an uphill battle. You’re trying to say you’re equal with somebody who has more life experiences than you do. you don’t, you couldn’t possibly have them. You made your age an issue. Accept it.

    G (722480)

  170. Wow, I messed up that trackback royally. I apologize for that. Feel free to edit or delete it as you see fit… Sorry!

    Linoge (c10834)

  171. i’m gonna stick up for leviticus here.
    i believe his age became an issue when sharon started mocking him about being too young to drink in a bar. this isn’t inherently bad on sharon’s part, i’m willing to mock youngsters i disagree with too.
    i know enough smart young people, and enough dumb older people, that i cannot accept age disparity itself as a determinator of rightness. leviticus seems to be smarter than the average teenager. i am opposed to banning him.
    @ls:
    “image” does, indeed, mean physical appearance, not spirit. if that’s supposed to be the inspired word of god, then god needs a good editor, because he inadvertently created a point of confusion and doubt forever to come.
    your construction of “all” as relating to just his family is strained, inasmuch as “all” is in no way identified with just “family” anywhere in the previous text, it seems to expand the scope of the previous family-related discussion you noted, and a writer expounding a religion with as bloody a record as christianity has a certain responsibility to avoid ambiguities in describing the class he wishes his god to rule.

    assistant devil's advocate (2eed70)

  172. “@a.d.a. Don’t go off on Althor for your lack of understanding of Christianity”

    -LS

    Since when is dissection of an opponents argument “going off on them”? ada could’ve given it to Althor a lot worse by giving it to him at all, which he didn’t.

    As a Christian, I would disagree with some of ada’s rhetoric (although his statements regarding a warlike history are accurate, like it or not). I would also argue that the failure of man doesn’t translate into the failure of God.

    I would NOT tell ada to “attempt to procreate rectally with” [himself], then ask him to “lighten up”. Althor is an idiot, but ada was nice enough to refrain from saying so.

    Leviticus (68eff1)

  173. ada,

    I just read the Ben Franklin thing…yeah. Pretty weird. I think we should make it required reading in high school history classes so as not to paint a falsely rosy picture of an obviously promiscuous old gentleman.

    Leviticus (68eff1)

  174. You know what Leviticus, for all your critics to have any legitimacy they would have to proclaim their own age so we can “judge” them accordingly. To those who make the claim that age is the issue, tell us your age and lets see if it fits with your on-line persona, then they can get over all this silliness about age and debate the issues.

    Paul (77818a)

  175. You mean my “immature attitude about argument and debate” that YOU NEVER MENTIONED BEFORE I TOLD YOU MY AGE? Hmmm…

    I argued that SOME adults compromise the ideals of youth as soon as it becomes economically viable, something I’m sure you would agree with.

    I don’t know where you get off telling me about “choosing priorities as life changes”. What do think I did when I left high school? I left behind friends I’d cherished for 4 years, the best friends I’ve ever had, in order to pursue a fulfilling education. I forsake drinking continuously (regardless of its prevalence on campus) in order to maintain the trust of my parents. What do you call these things, sharon? Childish nonsense?

    By the way, I apologize for not answering your immature snark with a mature platitude. I realize that I am the one who should be acting like the adult in this situation.

    Leviticus,

    Your age and immaturity became an issue when you decided to criticize adults for acting like adults (i.e., behaving differently as they age and mature and embrace different experiences and values). The rest of your comments simply continue to reinforce the original point of my sarcastic comment: you are still immature. You are still arguing from a point of disadvantage by trying to say adults who become wiser with age and change their values as a result of that are “selling out.”

    You may still believe whatever it is you believe now when you are 40. That’s fine. But it is insulting to the adults that comment here for you to continue this idiotic display of immaturity. You left your friends that you’ve had for 4 whole years to go to college. So what? 4 whole years? My car is older than that. As you get older you will find that you will make decisions based not simply on what you want for today but what is best for other people (your spouse, children, parents). This is why trying to say that going to college early is a hardship is nonsense. If you had had to drop out of school to get a fulltime job to support your parents, that would be a hardship. If you had joined the military and spent years supporting a spouse and children on 1/2 of your military pay, that would be a hardship. You simply haven’t lived long enough to even understand what hardship is.

    My snark at you was not immature. I was responding to your challenge that I wouldn’t want to “beat on Limbaugh.” Your very language showed a limited ability to engage in thoughtful debate and so I gave an answer that I thought even you would understand. Your response was quite telling: instead of saying something that would have indicated both humor and maturity (such as “I’ll look forward to that day!” or something of that nature) or even ignored what I said, you attacked my sex (“Must be that time of month, eh, sharon?”) in perhaps, the most juvenile way possible. Your continued response keeps proving my original point.

    sharon (dfeb10)

  176. i’m gonna stick up for leviticus here.
    i believe his age became an issue when sharon started mocking him about being too young to drink in a bar. this isn’t inherently bad on sharon’s part, i’m willing to mock youngsters i disagree with too.
    i know enough smart young people, and enough dumb older people, that i cannot accept age disparity itself as a determinator of rightness. leviticus seems to be smarter than the average teenager. i am opposed to banning him.

    His age became an issue in a previous thread when he argued that at least some adults “sell out” as they grow up. It reared its head again when he sarcastically challenged me saying he’d love to continue “beating up on Limbaugh–you game?” It was an eye-roller comment, which is why I answered him as I did. Then he pursued the issue by making a sexist remark to which I commented that he kept making my point.

    In no way would I want Leviticus banned. I love watching him stick his foot in his mouth.

    And I am 42 years old. Next.

    sharon (dfeb10)

  177. “…instead of saying something that would have indicated both humor and maturity (such as “I’ll look forward to that day!” or something of that nature)…you attacked my sex (”Must be that time of month, eh, sharon?”) in perhaps, the most juvenile way possible”

    -sharon

    Is that what all this has been about?

    Did you even read the rest of my comment? I was making a point about NOT criticizing people for things that they couldn’t control (like my age, or your gender); apparently you missed the irony (although my calling my own words “totally inappropriate” should’ve given it away).

    “I’ll look forward to that day!”? Why the hell would I say that? I don’t want to have a drink with you, and I have no reason to kiss up to you. You insult me and expect me to ask for another? No way.

    “I love watching him stick his foot in his mouth”

    -sharon

    Well, at least when my feet are in my mouth you can keep an eye on them, right? (Disclaimer: The aforementioned is a joke, meant to poke fun at sharon’s statement).

    Obvious enough?

    By the way, you still haven’t answered my question as to why my age only became an issue after you learned it started with a one. Am I to assume that you have no logical answer to this question? I would hope not, but…

    Leviticus (ce54b3)

  178. Leviticus,

    When you are old enough and mature enough to understand why a humorous rebuttal is better than your 12 attempts at put-down, then you will be ready to have a serious political discussion with me. Until then, just go back to arguing with someone who thinks “Is it that time of the month” is witty reparte.

    How many more ways can I say it? You made your age an issue in a previous thread when you discussed it and tried to assert knowledge of life without having experienced it. Your age, per se, is not the problem. It’s the immaturity you have displayed throughout your attempts to put me down. Others have already stated it, as have I repeatedly: you don’t know what you’re talking about. But please, continue making a fool of yourself.

    sharon (dfeb10)

  179. Someone else explain to sharon the irony of my statement – apparently she’s plugging her proverbial ears every time I open my proverbial mouth.

    By the way, you still haven’t answered my question as to why my age only became an issue after you learned it started with a one. Am I to assume that you have no logical answer to this question? I would hope not, but…

    Leviticus (43095b)

  180. Leviticus,

    Believe this or not, I thought I was pretty mature when I was 19…. 9 years later, I know better. As to wanting to know why your age became an issue because its starts with a “1,”….. That really shouldn’t be a question that you need to ask. But in my opinion, being a teenager, by default just illustrates how little life experience and knowledge you could possibly have. And, I still say this knowing nothing about you.

    G (722480)

  181. Well, G, I can’t for the life of me figure it out. Enlighten me.

    If you couldn’t tell my age and consequent “immaturity” from my POSTS, then it’s probably safe to say that, in this world we’ve created for ourselves, they are irrelevant.

    But please…Enlighten me.

    Leviticus (1daf74)

  182. All I’m saying is what you said: “What’s more, my age doesn’t make me inferior to you”

    And I’m saying, yes, infact, it does.
    Do you want me to explain?

    G (722480)

  183. Yes

    Leviticus (68eff1)

  184. Do you have a college education?
    Have you served for the military?
    Have you worked over 60 hours a week, for a year straight?
    Do you have children of your own?
    Have you been married?
    Have you been divorced?
    Have you lived on your own? (Paying all the bills)
    Have you ever had to work two jobs or more so your family can live?
    Have you been in a car accident?
    Have you been physically disabled?
    Has the person you loved with all your heart cheated on you and destroyed your world?
    Do you pay over $10,000 in taxes per year?

    Now, obviously these are just a bunch of lame questions in which I’m guessing you are more likely to say “No” to then “yes.” These are just a list of things that change and mold your life. People in their twenties are more likely to have a good amount of these life changing experiences which makes the better and stronger than they were before.

    G (722480)

  185. Do you have multiple graduate degrees in the field of Political Science?
    Have you commanded the US Army?
    Have you worked 100 hours a week since you were 18?
    Have you adopted children from foreign countries?
    Have you married a King/Queen?
    Have you divorced said King/Queen?
    Have you lived on your own, supporting your entire extended family on your paycheck?
    Have you solved world hunger?
    Have you ever driven a monster truck in a professional venue?
    Do you have %25 of you limbs?
    Have you ever caught a significant other in the act, on your bed, with ALL of your childhood friends?
    Do you pay over $1 million dollars in taxes per year?

    I understand that you probably haven’t, G. But I don’t judge you, because none of that shit matters when we’re sitting here, mano a mano, talking politics. You have no idea what may or may not be a factor in the shaping of my political opinions, nor I an idea as to the shaping of yours. We can’t argue about subjective speculations…Let’s stick to the merit of our respective viewpoints.

    Leviticus (68eff1)

  186. I’m not judging you at all pal. But if you think none of “that shit matters… when talking politics…” then you’re an idiot beyond belief. You asked me on why I think you are “inferior” to somebody older than you, I think I helped highlight my point. You can obviously choose to believe whatever you want. You can choose to believe that your life experiences are on par with that of somebody twice your age. But they aren’t. You’re still are a seedling wanting to become a tree.

    G (722480)

  187. […] You know, I can see that Brian is trying to be sort of even-handed here, but was he absent during the “right-wing bloggers” tutorial on fake photos (”fauxtography”) being reported as real? Did he forget the time Newsweek made things very difficult for our troops by running a cover story absent of credible sources, which cost 15 lives? Fer cryin’ out loud, is the whole world suffering from short-term memory loss? Has Brian, and others, forgotten that the NY Times (”the paper of record” and the shining jewel in the increasingly tarnished crown of journalism) just last month spun John Kerry’s “botched joke” into something completely dishonest? Has he – and everyone – forgotten that on November 3 – just a few days before the elections the same paper hauled out the news that the Stoopit Bushies (prolly Dumya hisself) had posted Saddam’s Nuke Plans online for everyone and Iran to see, only to realize (oops!) that in doing so they were also revealing that Saddam was a year away from having nukes which ummm…sorta validated Stoopit Bush. That story quickly went down the memory hole and I don’t believe it was picked up by a single wire-service or network, and I’m pretty sure a Nexis-Lexis search won’t turn up much, either. Nah. Only premature, hot-headed right-wing bloggers followed that episode of Timestanic-meets-another-Iceberg. And crap, probably some of us have even forgotten it, already. […]

    The Anchoress » Iraq: Bloggers “premature,” press “focused” (1b383c)

  188. […] The Anchoress isn’t happy and she spells it out. She takes the MSM out to the woodshed for for blaming bloggers and anyone else in sight for the current state of political affairs. The MSM don’t even have the capacity to look inward. They have created a lot more than a tainted media. They have in fact, created and allowed for a culture and society that has no compunction in calling for theg blood of whomever they disagree with and whio can’t even be bothered to even attempt to hide fraud and deceit, as in the case of the Kerry ‘joke’ as covered by the NYT (H/T The Anchoress). The Anchoress goes on to say I want our press to be healthy and honest and accountable. [emp-SC&A] Our country will not survive with sick, BDS-infected media that only tells what it wants to tell, instead of what it damn well should. Is it really asking too much? […]

    Media, Advertrising And The Road To Hell « Sigmund, Carl and Alfred (ce4064)

  189. […] these things happened just as they say? Hogwash! The New York Slimes has lied about everything from remarks of John Kerry’s to photos of a dead guy in Tyre to pulishing a photoshopped image of an airstrike in Pakistan to […]

    Lest anyone still believe the Old Grey Witch is unbiased.. « StarCMC’s Enemedia Roundup (7b138e)

  190. Keyboard blond buy…

    oh, good times….

    Keyboard blond buy (28fd41)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.5742 secs.